Automatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co.
| Citation | 54 F. Supp. 105 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2826. |
| Parties | AUTOMATIC PAPER MACHINERY CO., Inc., v. MARCALUS MFG. CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Young, Shanley & Foehl, of Newark, N. J. (George E. Middleton, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, N. J. (Samuel E. Darby, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
This is a civil action under the patent laws to enjoin the infringement of a patent and to compel an accounting for profits. The plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the patent in suit under an assignment by the defendant Nicholas Marcalus. The only issue raised in the pleadings of the respective parties is that of infringement.
The action is before the court at this time on a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, and is submitted on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and exhibits. It clearly appears from this record that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" within the meaning of the said rule.
It is conceded by the plaintiff and the defendants that the issue of infringement may be decided on the present record. The patent in suit is a simple one and may be construed by the court without the assistance of experts. This is equally true of the prior art patent, upon which the defense of non-infringement primarily rests. The ultimate issue of fact, that of infringement, as here raised, is subordinate to the principal issue of law, the construction of the patents. The parties are in substantial agreement on the evidence and admit that on a trial of the action no additional evidence would be offered.
The plaintiff, Automatic Paper Machinery Company, Inc., is, and was since February 2, 1932, the owner of Patent No. 1,843,429, issued on the application of the defendant Nicholas Marcalus, who, prior to the issuance thereof, assigned all right, title, and interest therein to the plaintiff. The patent issued on the application as filed and after the said defendant had withdrawn from the plaintiff, of which he was, at the time of the assignment, and had been since 1924, an officer and employee.
The defendant Nicholas Marcalus, under circumstances not material to the present controversy, withdrew from the plaintiff in 1931, and in 1932 organized the defendant Marcalus Manufacturing Company, a corporation, of which he is, and has been since its organization, the president and principal stockholder. The only other officers and stockholders are, and have been, his wife and son. The defendant Marcalus Manufacturing Company is undoubtedly the alter ego of the defendant Nicholas Marcalus.
The defendant Marcalus Manufacturing Company is, and has been since its organization, engaged in the manufacture of dispensing boxes, in competition with the plaintiff. It is here charged that the machine or press employed by this defendant in the manufacture of the said boxes is an infringement of the patent in suit, and particularly claims 3, 4, and 7 thereof.
The patent in suit, hereinafter referred to as the Marcalus patent, embraces eleven claims and covers "a method and machine for mounting a cutting strip of a hard nonmetallic substance on an edge of a box blank." Claim 4, which is typical, defines the machine as follows: "In a press for mounting a cutter upon a box blank, the combination of a reciprocable ram, means for feeding a sheet of cutter material into overlapping relation to a box blank beneath the ram, means for severing a cutter from the sheet and securing it to the blank on each downward movement of the ram, and means operated by each upward movement of the ram for actuating the sheet feeding means."
The method claims, 10 and 11, are directed to the successive operations performed by the respective elements of the machine. It seems unnecessary, therefore, to separately consider these claims.
The accused machine is identical in its basic structural elements with the combination defined in the quoted claim. This identity is easily demonstrated by comparing the elements of the invention, as defined in the quoted claim, with the elements embodied in the accused machine. This comparison, with the elements of the accused machine described in parentheses, follows: "In a press for mounting a cutter upon a box blank," (a punch press of common construction adapted to the peculiar operations) "the combination of a reciprocable ram," (a ram of common construction adapted to the peculiar operations) "means for feeding a sheet of cutter material into overlapping relation to a box blank beneath the ram," (a delivery roller and a pair of feed rollers arranged in series to guide and feed the material to a pair of cutting dies) "means for severing a cutter from the sheet and securing it to the blank on each downward movement of the ram," (a pair of serrate cutting dies, one fixed and the other moveable, so mounted above an anvil as to permit the severance of the material and its attachment to the box blank in a single operation) "and means operated by each upward movement of the ram for actuating the sheet feeding means." (a combination of a ratchet wheel and a reciprocating pawl so mounted that on each upward movement of the ram the ratchet wheel is moved counterclockwise, thereby rotating the feed rollers).
Any doubt on the question of encroachment is dissipated upon reference to the specifications of the patent. It is obvious that the accused press is similar in both construction and operation to the press described and illustrated in the specifications, and differs only in the arrangement of its structural elements. This rearrangement of elements, without the production of any new or different result, is not a sufficient departure from the invention to avoid the charge of infringement.
The defendants, in support of their defense of non-infringement, offer in evidence the Inman patent (No. 1,036,851), which expired on August 27, 1929, more than two years before the Marcalus patent issued. It is the contention of the defendants that the accused machine follows the teachings of the Inman patent, which they have a right to appropriate without subjecting themselves to liability for infringement.
The Inman patent is a complete anticipation of the Marcalus patent. The subjects of the respective patents are substantially identical and are adapted to, and intended for, the same use. The machine of the Inman patent differs from the machine of the Marcalus patent only in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott Paper Co v. Marcalus Mfg Co
...machine is a copy of that of the expired prior art patent issued to Inman in 1912. The District Court gave judgment for petitioner, 54 F.Supp. 105, holding that inasmuch as respondents were estopped by Marcalus' assignment of the patent to show its validity, they could not, by recourse to t......
- Automatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 8589.
-
California Concrete Co. v. Beverly Hills Savings & Loan Assn.
...they had not been set forth in the third parties' complaint or tried by express or implied consent. In Automatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co. (D.C.N.J.1944) 54 F.Supp. 105, reversed on other grounds, 147 F.2d 608 (1945), aff'd 326 U.S. 249, 66 S.Ct. 101, 90 L.Ed. 47 (1945), it w......