Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter Products
Citation | 230 F.2d 855 |
Decision Date | 08 March 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 7075.,7075. |
Parties | COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corporation, John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., and Read Drug & Chemical Company, Inc., Appellants, v. CARTER PRODUCTS, Inc., Joseph G. Spitzer and Marvin Small, Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
John T. Cahill, New York City (Benjamin B. Schneider, New York City, H. Vernon Eney, Baltimore, Md., H. Walter Reynolds, New York City, Trenton Meredith, Jersey City, N. J., Thomas C. Mason, New York City, H. Paul Rome, H. Ross Black, Jr., and Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City (William L. Hanaway, New York City, William D. Denson, Washington, D. C., Jerome G. Lee and Morris Kirschstein, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal in a case involving patent infringement and appropriation of trade secrets. The patent in suit is United States Patent No. 2,655,480 issued October 13, 1953 to one Spitzer and others relating to a pressurized shaving cream. The plaintiffs in the court below, appellees here, were Spitzer and his partner Small, holders by assignment from the other patentees, and Carter Products Inc., manufacturer of drugs and cosmetics and the holder of an exclusive license under the patent. The defendants below, appellants here, were the Colgate-Palmolive Company, the manufacturer of a pressurized shaving cream alleged to infringe, the Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corporation and John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., who packaged pressurized shaving cream alleged to infringe the patent for the Mennen Company, and the Read Drug & Chemical Company, Inc., which sold the pressurized shaving cream for Colgate and Mennen. Plaintiffs claimed infringement of only eight claims of the patent. Defendants admitted infringement if these claims were valid but denied their validity and asked judgment declaring them as well as all other claims of the patent invalid.
The trial court held the patent valid, and enjoined infringement thereof as well as the use of a trade secret held to have been wrongfully appropriated by Colgate. It also ordered Colgate to assign to plaintiffs rights under patent applications found to have been based upon the trade secret. The case was referred to a special master to determine and report as to damages resulting from infringement and also as to damages and profits for which Colgate should be required to account because of misappropriation of trade secrets and to make recommendations as to whether the damages on account of patent infringement should be increased as allowed by statute, reserving, however, for future determination the question as to whether increased damages should be awarded. Judgment was entered that plaintiffs recover their costs and taxable disbursements to date, including against Colgate reasonable attorneys' fees, and the special master was directed to include in his report a recommendation as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be allowed. Three principal questions are presented by the appeal: (1) Is the patent valid? (2) Should the findings of the trial court as to misappropriation of trade secrets be sustained? And (3) Is the decree proper?
Spitzer, one of the patentees, in the year 1948 conceived the idea of developing a shaving lather which, like the lather produced by machines in barber shops, could be used as it came from the container without being worked up on the face. He employed Foster D. Snell, Inc., consulting chemists, to work out his idea for him in terms of a mixture that could be enclosed in a small container and, upon the opening of a valve, would emerge in the form of a durable lather, which, without whipping up or other agitation, could be used for shaving purposes. Snell put to work on the project two chemists, Reich and Fine, who after several months of work and experimentation developed an emulsion consisting of an aqueous soap solution mixed with certain gases liquefied by pressure, which they enclosed in a container. When the valve of the container was opened the pressure of the gases extruded the emulsion and, as it came from the can, the particles of gas expanded into minute bubbles covered with soap which was the shaving lather desired. Patent, applied for November 2, 1949, was issued to Spitzer, Reich and Fine October 13, 1953. In the meantime an exclusive license had been granted to Carter and the product was being marketed under the trade name of "Rise". It achieved at once outstanding commercial success. Sales of "Rise" in 1950 amounted to $400,000, in 1951 to $800,000, in 1952 to $1,800,000 and in 1953 to $2,600,000. The sales of Colgate's infringing product in 1954 amounted to $5,000,000.
There was, of course, nothing novel in the use of soap to make lather, nor in the use of a can as a container, nor in the use of a gas liquefied by pressure and mixed with another liquid to spray the mixture from the can. What was novel was to get a mixture of the right gases, with the right soaps in the right proportions, confined in a container under the right pressure, so that a lather satisfactory for shaving purposes would be produced when the mixture was allowed to emerge. In producing such a mixture many problems were encountered and the record shows that their solution took many months. The first experiment consisted in mixing a liquid soap then on the market with nitrous oxide gas, the gas used with pressurized whipped cream This was a failure because the gas was soluble in the aqueous soap solution and the product extruded from the container was not a lather useful for shaving but a mere soapy liquid. An emulsion consisting of the gas propellant Freon-12 (dichlordifluormethane) and the soap solution used in barber shop machines would not do because the pressure was too high. Reduction of the vapor pressure by mixing Freon-11 (monofluortrichlormethane) with Freon-12 produced a smarting, skin-irritating product not suitable for shaving. Reduction of vapor pressure with mineral oil solved the pressure problem but produced problems in connection with the soaps. Finally, after much experimentation, sodium soaps were eliminated and the soap solution adopted was a combination of 80 parts of TEA (triethanolamine) stearate and 20 parts of TEA cocoate, to prevent jelling. The proper propellant was found after much inquiry and experiment by mixing Freon-114 (1, 2 dichlor 1, 1, 2, 2 tetrafluorethane) with Freon-12. The trial judge summarized the matter as follows:
The invention is thus described in the specification:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
...396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 39, 24 L.Ed.2d 125, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 949, 90 S.Ct. 369, 24 L.Ed.2d 254 (1969); Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Products, Inc., 230 F.2d 855 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed.2d 59, reh'g denied, 352 U.S. 913, 77 S.Ct. 152, 1 L.Ed.2d 120......
-
Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.
...denied, 260 U.S. 727, 43 S.Ct. 89, 67 L.Ed. 484; Carter Products v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, D.Md.1955, 130 F. Supp. 557, affirmed, 230 F.2d 855, cert. denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed.2d 59; Permutit Co. v. Wadham, supra; Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 190......
-
Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
...were charged 'with whatever knowledge such inquiry would have led to.' ") (citation omitted); Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Prods., Inc., 230 F.2d 855, 864 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (defendant " 'must have known by the exercise of fair business principles' " that its employee's work was cov......
-
Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc.
...Missouri; Franke v. Wiltschek, supra Note 7, 209 F.2d at pages 494-495, decided under the law of New York; Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Products, 4 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 855, 864, which, although arising in Maryland, was seemingly decided on the basis of general law. Among some state case......
-
CHAPTER 4 ACQUIRING SEISMIC DATA - AGREEMENTS WITH LAND OR LEASE OWNERS, CONTRACTING FOR SEISMIC DATA OR SERVICES
...at 14-21. [114] Savit 2, supra note 61, at 14-21. See also, Carter Prod., Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 130 F. Supp. 557 (D. Md.), aff'd, 230 F.2d 855 (4th Cir. 1955). [115] Savit 2, supra note 61, at 14-22. [116] Decker & Stevens, supra note 4, at C-25. See also, K & G Oil Tool & Serv. Co......
-
CHAPTER 4 CUTTING YOUR PROSPECT DOWN TO SEISMIC: THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONTRACTING FOR SEISMIC SERVICES AND DATA
...supra at 14-21. [99] .Savit 2, supra at 14-21. See also, Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 130 F.Supp. 557 (D.Md.), aff'd, 230 F.2d 855 (4%gth%g Cir. 1955). [100] .Savit 2, supra at 14-22. [101] .Decker & Stevens, supra at C-25. See also, K&G Oil Tool & Service Co. v. G&G Fish......
-
Protecting against the disclosure of trade secrets to independent experts and third-party fact witnesses during an Internal Revenue Service audit.
...Part (21)30 (May 29, 1984). (10) Restatement (First) of Tort [section] 757 (1939); see Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Products, Inc., 230 F.2d 855, 864 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 843 (1956); Continental Data Systems, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 638 F.2d 432 (E.D. Pa. (11) Willie Nelson Mu......
-
An Introduction to the Law of Trade Secrets
...12. CRS § 7-74-107. 13. CRS § 7-74-106. 14. CRS § 7-74-103. 15. CRS § 7-74-104. 16. Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Products, 230 F.2d 855 (4th Cir. 1956). 17. Hunter v. Shell Oil Co., 198 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1952). 18. CRS § 7-74-104(1). 19. CRS § 7-74-104(2). 20. CRS § 7-74-105. 21. Kewane......