American Cork Specialties Co. v. Robbins
Decision Date | 21 June 1945 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4638. |
Citation | 61 F. Supp. 681 |
Parties | AMERICAN CORK SPECIALTIES CO., Inc., v. ROBBINS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Sidney M. Spero, of New York City (W. Lee Helms, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Briesen & Schrenk, of New York City (Gustav Drews and Fred A. Klein, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
The question for decision in this case is the validity of Claim 1 of Patent No. 2,160,517, issued May 30, 1939, to Harry Rabinowitz and Murray Rabinowitz, for a combination metal cap and dauber. If the claim is valid, infringement is conceded. So also, novelty and utility are conceded. There remains, therefore, only the question of invention.
The claim describes an article of manufacture and reads as follows:
There is no prior art to set up in the answer; and at the trial, but brief reference was made to certain articles and patents to show the state of the art.
In the specification, the patentees point out that theretofore container closures and wires for holding tools or daubers that are disposed in the containers consisted of wires forced into a cork body or stopper, or into a bore formed in a projection of a Bakelite cap. It is stated that the cork dauber was an expensive contrivance; and that Bakelite is very brittle and comparatively low in tensile strength. The inventors assert that it was not known prior to their invention how to provide a practical, cheap way of securing a wire to a metal closure. They believed welding or soldering would be unduly expensive. In consequence they sought a device which would meet the limitations of the known art while at the same time securing a closure that would be fluid tight.
The problem as presented in the specification was clearly one for solution by anyone skilled in the art of taking three elements making up this device, to wit, a metallic screw cap, a liner of relatively soft material, and a wire member adapted to carry a dauber at one end, and fashioning them together effectively.
The specification recites that:
In passing it may be observed that there was no suggestion that the method employed involved any invention. To secure a riveted connection between the metal cap with its flexible lining and the eye of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lage v. CALDWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
...production cost is the reason for the commercial success, that may not be accepted as evidence of invention. American Cork Specialties Co. v. Robbins, E.D. N.Y., 61 F.Supp. 681. The court should also attach some probative value to that fact that for several years after the license agreement......