ALB, INC. v. NOMA ELECTRIC CORPORATION

• Decision Date: 17 November 1954
• Citation: 130 F. Supp. 918
• Parties: ALB, Inc., Plaintiff, v. NOMA ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

130 F. Supp. 918

ALB, Inc., Plaintiff, v.NOMA ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

November 17, 1954.

Frederick P. Warfield, New York City, for plaintiff.

Morris Kirschstein, New York City, for defendant.

WALSH, District Judge.

The court states the basis for its determination as follows:

Of course, I am not overruling the Court of Appeals here or Judge Ryan, and, further, I am not disregarding the force of their conclusion.Even if I were not bound to follow, I would be persuaded by the discussion in their opinions.But I do not think the question here is what I believe to be the fact.The question here is what the plaintiff has proven to be the fact, and what I am holding is that the decision in the Raylite case has not eliminated the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's device is the equivalent of the Rosenblatt device; and neither does that opinion carry the force of proof in this case.

In other words, it does not supply the proof which the plaintiff is required to produce.

The Raylite case, as I recall it and understand it, concerns a comparison of the later Otis patent with the Rosenblatt patent — I mean with the prior art, including the Rosenblatt patent — to determine whether the later Otis patent was a valid patent.It did not concern in any way violation of the Rosenblatt patent.It was concerned with the question of whether Rosenblatt, along with any other person, could manufacture the device described in the later Otis patent.It was not concerned with whether Rosenblatt or his assignee had the exclusive right to manufacture such a device; and I do not think that a determination of the first question determines the second.

In other words, neither ...