Allegheny Steel & Brass Corporation v. Elting, 8352.
| Citation | 141 F.2d 148 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8352.,8352. |
| Parties | ALLEGHENY STEEL & BRASS CORPORATION et al. v. ELTING et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Brayton G. Richards, of Chicago, Ill. (Elmer L. Zwickel, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellants.
Henry Blech, Herman Herson, and Blech & Herson, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.
This action involves plaintiffs' petition for a declaratory decree under 28 U.S.C. A. § 400. It sought a declaration that United States Design Patent No. 118,968, and United States Mechanical Patent No. 2,278,433 are invalid and not infringed by plaintiffs' products. These patents were issued to the defendant, August O. Elting, on the respective dates of February 13, 1940 and April 7, 1942, on applications respectively filed on November 1, 1939 and October 2, 1940. It further sought a declaration that Elting was not the inventor of either of the patents and that the defendants had issued false and misleading statements that plaintiffs and their customers and prospective customers were infringing the patents prior to their issuance, which misleading statements were calculated to destroy plaintiffs' business. The first patent mentioned relates to a design for an arm for a lamp, and the second, to the arm for such lamp. The plaintiffs and defendants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of lamp fixtures and are competitors.
To this petition the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim charging plaintiffs with infringement of the patents and unfair competition. After hearing all the evidence, the court permitted the defendants to amend their answer and counterclaim by eliminating all charges of infringement of the mechanical patent, and they denied that any controversy had arisen in regard to that patent.
The District Court made special findings of facts and rendered its conclusions of law thereon, upon which it entered a decree holding both patents invalid and allowed damages to plaintiffs. In aid of that decree it entered an order enjoining defendants from further dissemination of any literature charging infringement or making any other untrue statements relating thereto. From that decree this appeal is prosecuted.
The court found that defendants had circulated, prior to the issuance of these patents, representations to plaintiffs' customers, prospective customers and agents, that the latters' products infringed these patents.
The court also found the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amerock Corporation v. Aubrey Hardware Mfg., Inc.
...affirmed; Capex Co. v. Swartz, 7 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 5, game board, validity reversed and held invalid; Allegheny Steel & Brass Corporation v. Elting, 7 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 148, lamp arm, invalidity affirmed; Smith v. Dental Products Co., 7 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 140, ampule, validity rever......
-
Building Innovation Industries, L.L.C. v. Onken
...an independent contractor. Such a contract term may be implied when the inventor is a traditional employee. Allegheny Steel & Brass Corp. v. Elting, 141 F.2d 148, 149 (7th Cir.1944). The claims concerning the invalidity of Onken's patent application also fall within the scope of § 285 becau......
-
Mooney v. Brunswick Corp.
...what was formerly two pieces into one piece is per se obvious. In support of its statement, defendant cites Allegheny Steel and Brass Corp. v. Elting, 141 F.2d 148 (7th Cir. 1944); Enterprise Railway Equipment Co. v. Pullman Standard Car Mfg. Co., 95 F.2d 17 (7th Cir. 1938) and In re Larson......
-
Gilson v. Commissioner
...to create a design or invention, is still the owner of the design or invention and the patent rights. Allegheny Steel & Brass Corp. v. Elting, 141 F. 2d 148, 149 (7th Cir. 1944); American Sign and Indicator Corp. v. Schulenburg, 167 F. Supp. 20, 30 (E.D. Ill. 1958). Petitioner was not an em......