American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C75-63A. |
| Parties | AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SEATING COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
F. Rush McKnight, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, Ohio, Lloyd A. Heneveld, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff.
Charles B. Lyon, John W. Renner, Donnelly, Maky, Renner & Otto, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
The above captioned cause of action came on for trial before this Court from February 13, 1976 through February 25, 1976. The following shall constitute this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff American Seating Company (hereinafter American) brings this action asserting patent infringement of its United States Letters Patent No. 3,729,226 (hereinafter '226) issued April 24, 1973, against defendant National Seating Company (hereinafter National). Defendant has answered American's complaint, alleging non-infringement and invalidity, and has counterclaimed asserting the same defenses.
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Chester J. Barecki, the inventor of the '226 Patent, is an employee of American who has been involved in the transportation field since the 1940's.
Defendant National is a subsidiary of National City Lines. National makes only recliner type inter-city passenger bus seats today, although at one time it made both intra-city and inter-city type bus seats.
There are presently pending before this Court plaintiff's motion for payment of expenses concerning the post trial deposition of Mr. Barecki and defendant's motion to strike portions of said deposition.
During trial it was brought out that defendant had sent the wrong model seats to plaintiff for certain tests to be performed for trial. Upon learning of this, the Court ordered defendant to supply the appropriate seats, and further allowed plaintiff to conduct tests and further depose Mr. Barecki concerning those tests. Upon consideration, the Court shall grant plaintiff's motion for an award of expenses in the amount of Three thousand, two hundred ninety-seven dollars ($3,297.00) only. The remainder of plaintiff's motion is denied.
The '226 Patent (see diagram, next page) was designed by Mr. Barecki around April, 1970. Said patent contains six claims, Claims 1 and 6 being independent, and Claims 2 through 5 being dependent upon Claim 1. Said claims disclose two side-by-side seats, 11 and 12, which are both mounted upon a beam 13. Said beam 13 is provided at one end with an angle iron 14 for connecting the beam to a vehicle wall. The beam 13 is supported at its center by a pedestal which includes an upright column 15. The bottom of column 15 is provided with a tubular foot 16, extending fore and aft of the vehicle. The ends of the tubular foot 16 are cut on a 45 degree bias as shown at 17 to define access openings in the tubular foot leading to the fastening bolts used to secure foot 16 to the floor. The access apertures may be selectively covered by plates 20 which are releasably retained in positions by a U-shaped spring plate 23, having lugs 21 received in apertures 22 in the foot 16.
It is the assertion of plaintiff that said structure provides the advantages of better clearance between seats, resulting in ease of cleaning the floor, increased leg room, increased storage space, and provides ease and safety in egress and ingress to the passengers.
The specific claims in issue of the '226 Patent read as follows:
Plaintiff asserts that its patent is valid and defendant's seat models 1059, 1060, the "Old 1070", and the "New 1070"1 infringe the patent in suit. Plaintiff asserts that Models 1059 and 1060 were sold in 1973 and directly infringe upon the patent in suit as well as both the New and Old Model 1070 developed generally in 1973 and sold in 1974 and 1975, which also read directly upon the patent in issue.
Plaintiff further alleges that the National models mentioned above are essentially copies of the '226 Patent and further claims that National's seat design and development were copied from American's patented product.
Defendant asserts that plaintiff's patent is invalid pursuant to Title 35 U.S.C. § 102 as it was anticipated by the prior art and was obvious pursuant to Title 35 U.S.C. § 103 to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was assertedly made. Finally, defendant argues that plaintiff should be estopped from asserting infringement against defendant because of plaintiff's conduct before the Patent Examiner in failing to point out the best prior art available.
Further, defendant National asserts that the development of its seat models and foot designs were independent of any development or patent of plaintiff.
Upon consideration and as will be discussed below, it is the determination of this Court that the patent in suit, United States Letters Patent No. 3,729,226, is invalid as it was anticipated by prior art, was obvious to those skilled in the art at the time it was invented, and further as it fails to particularly describe that which is claimed to be invented.
The Court turns first to the issue of validity of the '226 Patent under Title 35 U.S.C. § 102. Title 35 U.S.C. § 102 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
... ... See National Auto Brokers Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 572 F.2d 953, at 956 (2d Cir ... " 2 It noted that this was "the policy of its more important American competitors," 3 457 F. Supp. 412 that it was among United's familiar ... ...
-
Black & Decker Mfg. v. Ever-Ready Appliance
...amendments of claims. Coleco Industries v. United States Intern., Etc., 573 F.2d 1247 (C.C.P.A.1978); American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co., 457 F.Supp. 444 (N.D. Ohio 1976), aff'd 586 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1978); Duplan Corporation, supra; Marston v. J. C. Penney Company, 324 F.Supp. 8......
-
Nippon Elec. Glass Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon, 79 Civ. 2525 (RLC)
...articles whose elements perform substantially the same work in substantially the same manner. E.g., American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co., 457 F.Supp. 444, 452 (N.D.Ohio 1976), aff'd, 586 F.2d 611, (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1999, 60 L.Ed.2d 377 (1979). In ......
-
Roberts v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.
...readings of the patent in issue must be utilized in determining both validity and infringement. American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co., 457 F.Supp. 444, 458 (N.D. Ohio 1976), aff'd, 586 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1999, 60 L.Ed.2d 377 Sears conceded d......