Ag Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida, 72-1108.
Decision Date | 13 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1108.,72-1108. |
Citation | 481 F.2d 668 |
Parties | AG PRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard A. SAKRAIDA, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Pierre Kolisch, Portland, Ore., Frank Hunter, El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
J. F. Hulse, El Paso, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In his petition for rehearing, Defendant-Appellee Sakraida seeks a remand of the issue of patent validity based on newly discovered evidence. His request is the substantial equivalent of a motion under Rule 60(b) (2), F.R.Civ.P., requesting relief from a final judgment because of newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b), F.R.Civ.P. See Bros. Incorporated v. W. E. Grace Manufacturing Co., 5th Cir. 1963, 320 F.2d 594, 607. In Ferrell v. Trailmobile, Inc., 5th Cir. 1955, 223 F.2d 697, 699, this Circuit adopted the following view of the District of Columbia Circuit, expressed in Smith v. Pollin, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 178, 194 F.2d 349, 350:
We think that procedure should be employed in this case, but with such modifications as are needed to fit the peculiar circumstances of the case. The movant, Sakraida, is the appellee. This Court, on February 5, 1973, reversed the judgment in his favor and found the patent valid. However, the mandate has not been issued, because Sakraida filed a timely petition for rehearing, attacking that decision on several grounds.1
Thus the appeal is now pending on Sakraida's petition for rehearing.2 Unless our present decision is changed on rehearing, the mandate of this Court, when ultimately issued, will permit such further proceedings as may be appropriate for a determination of the issue of infringement. As has been recognized by the district court, validity of the patent should be determined before ruling is made on infringement. Exercising our broad authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to "require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances," we would unravel the procedural tangle to "secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of * * *"3 this action.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a judgment holding the patent valid, subject, however, to that Court's consideration of a motion under Rule 60(b) (2),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borden, Inc. v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation
...reinforces the presumption of validity. AG PRO, Inc. v. Sakraida, 474 F.2d 167, 172 (5th Cir. 1973), on petition for rehearing, 481 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1973). Construing the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the presumption of validity in this case has been seriously weakened. Firs......
-
Parker v. Motorola, Inc.
...art at the time of the invention. AG Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida, 5 Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 167, 171, supplemented on petition for rehearing, 5 Cir. 1973, 481 F.2d 668. Furthermore, since the '119 patent claims at issue combine the teachings of the prior art, special strictness must be applied to be ......
-
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc
...to be filed in the District Court by the (petitioner) Sakraida on the issue of patent validity based on newly discovered evidence." 481 F.2d 668, 669 (1973). The District Court granted the motion and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals again reversed, holding that the grant of the mot......
-
Evans v. Buchanan
...its judgment in order to permit a new trial. Carr v. District of Columbia, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 432, 543 F.2d 917 (1976); Ag Pro, Inc. v. Sakraida, 481 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1973); Weiss v. Hunna, 312 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1963); Ryan, supra; Herring v. Kennedy-Herring Hardware Co., 261 F.2d 202 (6th ......