HC Baxter & Bro. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
Decision Date | 10 December 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 7-136. |
Citation | 236 F. Supp. 601 |
Parties | H. C. BAXTER & BRO., a partnership, and General Foods Corporation, a corporation of Delaware, Plaintiffs, v. The GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Inc., a corporation of Maryland, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Paul A. Wescott, Daniel T. Drummond, Jr., Portland, Me., and W. Brown Morton, New York City, for plaintiffs.
William B. Mahoney, Portland, Me., Nicholas J. Stathis and John T. Kelton, New York City, for defendant.
This is an action for infringement of United States Letters PatentNo. 2,498,024, entitled "Prefrying Treatment of Potatoes," issued on February 21, 1950, to John L. Baxter of Brunswick, Maine, upon application SerialNo. 689,205 filed on August 8, 1946.The action was instituted on December 26, 1962, by the then owner of the patent, H. C. Baxter & Bro.Subsequently, on January 7, 1963, H. C. Baxter & Bro. assigned to General Foods Corporation an undivided 13% interest in the patent, and on February 14, 1964, General Foods was joined as a partyplaintiff.Plaintiffs rely only upon claims 1, 6 and 7 of the patent.In its answer, defendant asserts the customary defenses of invalidity and non-infringement.Defendant also counterclaims for a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid and not infringed by it, and for a reasonable attorneys' fee and its costs.Plaintiffs seek an accounting, and both parties request appropriate injunctive relief.
The patent specifications recite that while the sugar content of the potato particles may be determined by any suitable means, this may be done with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of the invention by frying samples under the conditions to be used in frying the particular batch of potatoes and comparing the color of the thus fried samples with a color chart showing the sugar content by color pre-established by frying various samples under uniform conditions of time and temperature.(Pat. Col. 2, lines 24-41).
The specifications further state that the primary requirement of the sugar is that it be readily absorbed by the potato particles.(Pat. Col. 3, lines 51-52).Suitable sugars are specified to be, in the class of monosaccharides, dextrose, fructose and galactose; in the class of disaccharides, sucrose, lactose and maltose; and raffinose, a trisaccharide.(Pat. Col. 3, lines 53-56).The patent states that while any of these sugars may be used, dextrose "is perhaps best suited for the practice of * * * the invention under commercial conditions."(Pat. Col. 3, lines 57-60).The sugar solution may vary within substantial ranges "as between .25% to 10% by weight of the sugar to the water"; the preferred range is from .25% to 3%. (Pat. Col. 3, lines 61-64).The immersion time may also vary from ¼ to 5 minutes, but an immersion time of 1 to 3 minutes is preferred.(Pat. Col. 3, lines 71-74).While the temperature of the solution may range from just above its freezing point to its boiling point, the preferred range is between 60° F. and its boiling point.(Pat. Col. 3, line 74-Col. 4, line 3).The specifications state that the higher temperatures are not necessary except where a leaching action is required.(Pat. Col. 4, lines 6-8).The patentee recommends a frying time of 4½ minutes and a frying temperature of 360° F., although stating that satisfactory results are obtainable within the range of 300° to 425° F. (Pat. Col. 3, lines 8-15).Finally, the specifications recite that in practice the patentee uses a 1% dextrose solution at its boiling point and varies the dipping time in relation to the natural sugar content of the potato particles, utilizing a 1 minute dip where the natural sugar content of the particles is uniformly low; increasing the immersion time to 3 minutes if their natural sugar content is low to medium; and using a 2 minute dip if the raw potatoes are of mixed low and high natural sugar content.(Pat. Col. 4, lines 22-37).
The patent claims in suit read:
A brief statement of the development and commercial history of the Baxter process will be helpful to an understanding of the patent questions which are presented in this litigation.The evidence discloses that H. C. Baxter & Bro. is a business partnership, which, with its predecessor partnerships, has been engaged in producing and marketing food products for many years.Baxter's original products were canned vegetables, but during World War II one of its major products was dehydrated potatoes for the United States Army.In 1944, with the end of World War II approaching, the partnership established a products development committee to find other products which might utilize its potato handling facilities.After limited experimentation with canned French fried potatoes, the Baxter management decided to develop a process for the commercial production of frozen French fried potatoes; and by the fall of 1945 the firm was devoting most of its research to this endeavor.Baxter's quality control manager, Francis R. Saunders, was in charge of the project under Mr. Baxter's general supervision.
One of the first problems encountered by the partnership in developing a process for the commercial production of frozen French fried potatoes was that of obtaining a satisfactory brown color in the finished product.Saunders found that the freshly dug potatoes he was using in his experiments turned out almost white in color when fried.Mr. Baxter recalled that during the early 1930's the partnership had attempted to reduce the cost of producing its canned cream-styled corn by substituting dextrose for sucrose as a sweetening agent, but that it had been forced to abandon the practice because the dextrose had had the undesired effect of darkening the color of the creamed corn.At a staff meeting in November 1945he suggested that a satisfactory...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing Company
...of the patent in suit lacks sufficient precision to meet the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.16 H. C. Baxter and Bros. v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 236 F.Supp. 601, 611 (D.C.Me. 1964); Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. U. S. Laminating Corp., 282 F.Supp. 118, 128 22. The specification does ......
-
CPC International, Inc. v. Standard Brands Inc.
...that these claims are invalid because not "useful" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 236 F.Supp. 601, 611 (D.Me.1964), aff'd, 352 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct. 1338, 16 L.Ed.2d 358 Standard Bra......
-
Caldwell v. United States, 326-70.
...1006 (1920); E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., 250 F.Supp. 816 (N.D.Ill.1966); H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 236 F.Supp. 601 (D. Me.1964), aff'd, 352 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 905, 86 S. Ct. 1338, 16 L.Ed.2d 358 (1966); 2 ......
-
Borg-Warner Corporation v. Paragon Gear Works, Inc., 6491.
...the suggestion. Indeed, Texon is a case where too wide a range could invalidate the patent. Cf. H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.Me.1964, 236 F.Supp. 601, aff'd, 1 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 4 We are reminded of the conundrum, "How far can a dog run into the woods?" "Hal......