Collins v. Kraft
| Decision Date | 25 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 7098. |
| Citation | 144 F. Supp. 162 |
| Parties | Solomon M. COLLINS and Closures, Inc., a corporation of Michigan v. Barney H. KRAFT, Barney H. Kraft, Jr., Alvin Kraft, and Southern Venetian Blind & Awning Corp., a corporation of Maryland, and Charles Kraft, doing business as The Beauty Fold Door Co. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Niles, Barton, Yost & Dankmeyer, Carlyle Barton, Jr., Baltimore, Md., Barnes, Kisselle, Laughlin & Raisch, John M. Kisselle, Detroit, Mich., Fisher & Christen, L. Aubrey Goodson, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
Clark, Smith & Prendergast, Richard W. Case, Baltimore, Md., Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Andrew B. Beveridge, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
This is an action for alleged patent infringement, unfair competition and trademark infringement, brought by the inventor and his exclusive licensee. During the trial, the claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement were dismissed with prejudice.1
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the pleadings together with patent No. 597,402, issued to E. H. Duchemin, filed with the motion. The motion was overruled after hearing in open court.2
Thereafter an amended complaint was filed. Defendants filed the usual answer, denying the allegations of validity of the patent in suit on the ground of the prior art, disclosures in patents and printed publications, prior knowledge and use, defects in the claims, and misuse of the patent. Defendants also counter-claimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent in suit was invalid and not infringed.3 A second amended complaint was filed to add a new party defendant.
The patent in suit (S. M. Collins, 2,667,218 filed February 1, 1952, issued January 26, 1954) is for a "folding closure". Its object was to provide an attractive-looking folding door which could be easily installed in a household opening without special hardware and which could be manufactured of easily available materials to provide an inexpensive but attractive hingeless door closure. These ends4 are attained by the product manufactured by the corporate plaintiff under the patent.
The specifications state:
"Briefly, the invention consists of double sheets of decorative material such as leather, plastic or fabric which are sewed into vertical pockets, closed at the top, and in which is inserted a stiffening panel of inexpensive material provided with a supporting device which projects through the top of the pockets to co-operate with a slide."
The claims to which the proceedings were directed are 8, 9 and 10, reading as follows:
At the trial, defendants admitted infringement if plaintiff's patent were held valid.
The defenses relied upon were (1) anticipation by prior patents; (2) prior knowledge and use; and (3) lack of patentable invention.
The device disclosed by the specifications and drawings, and claimed in Claim 10 (in combination with claims 8 and 9) may be summarized as comprised of5 (a) double sheets of decorative material, (b) (1) which are sewed into vertical pockets, closed at the top and (2) open at the bottom to permit removal and replacement of panels; and (c) in which is inserted a stiffening panel, (d) provided with a supporting device which projects through the top of the pockets to cooperate with a slide, (e) the joined portions of the sheathing forming the sole hinge between the panels.
By way of patent anticipation, defendants offered in evidence copies of the following patents:
Inventor Device Number Issuance Date
Parker Hinge for Blinds 553,931 Feb. 4, 1896
Duchemin Curtain 597,402 Jan. 18, 1898
Holtzclaw Portiere 661,608 Nov. 13, 1900
Simmons Buggy-Boot 742,748 Oct. 27, 1903
Burford Wardrobe 835,701 Nov. 13, 1906
*Applas Vehicle Curtain 1,024,305 Apr. 23, 1912
Goldhahn Folding Screen 1,282,685 Oct. 22, 1918
*Cone Radiator Screen 1,558,533 Oct. 27, 1925
for automobiles
Kaplan, et al Automobile Top 1,835,405 Dec. 8, 1931
*Nordell Foldable Curtain 1,877,950 Sep. 20, 1932
Byron Window Curtain 2,002,171 Feb. 26, 1934
Haines Fireplace Screen 2,080,708 June 24, 1936
Kwon Bamboo Curtain 2,244,300 June 3, 1941
Brokering Flexible Device 2,257,103 Sep. 30, 1941
*Wirthman Blackout Device 2,325,992 Aug. 3, 1943
Skelly Flexible Wall 2,458,537 Jan. 11, 1949
Structure
The wide range of the cited patented devices makes it impractical, within any reasonable space, to analyze each one separately as it may apply to the five features of the device in question. Each was discussed by the witnesses and counsel as it was introduced, was dealt with in oral argument at the conclusion of the case and in briefs subsequently filed, and was considered by the Court, both during the trial, and in the light of the arguments and the briefs. I find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law that with respect to the above-mentioned five constituents of the device, the use of: (a) double sheets of decorative material is anticipated by Holtzclaw, Cone, Brokering and Nordell; (c) a stiffening panel inserted in pockets is anticipated by Holtzclaw, Duchemin, Simmons, Kaplan, Cone, Kwon, Brokering and Wirthman; (d) a panel-supporting device which projects through the top of the pockets to cooperate with a slide is anticipated by Holtzclaw, Parker, Burford, Applas, Byron and Kwon; and (e) joined portions of panel sheathing forming the sole hinge between the panels is anticipated by Holtzclaw, Duchemin, Cone, Brokering and Wirthman.
The cited patents disclose suspended slats, permanently hinged; slats of varying lengths permanently and independently enclosed in material, and permanently hinged; and slats of varying length sewn into closed pockets. None of them shows separately, and none suggests, a combination of individually suspended and unjoined panels covered by a vertically pocketed cover closed at the top and open at the bottom, as is disclosed in the patent in suit, whereby the panels serve the dual function of stiffening the cover, and in addition to supporting the cover generally, do so in a way preventing sag; and the cover performs the dual function of a cover and a hinge; the result being a suspended accordion folding door.6
The defense of prior knowledge and use was primarily based upon the testimony of one of the defendants, Barney H. Kraft, although an effort was made to establish prior knowledge and use by the witness Nicholson, produced by plaintiffs. At first blush, Kraft's testimony had been strongly indicative of anticipation. He testified that he had been engaged in the manufacture of custom-made curtains and closures for many years, and that he had seen and made, 35-40 years ago, "doors" equivalent to the Collins closure. They were made of a double thickness of canvas, supported on loose panels of plyboard, the canvas being double stitched to keep the panels separated, so that the canvas would fold. The panels had holes at the top, and pins were inserted through the two thicknesses of canvas, passing through the holes, which pins were then supported by rings strung on ordinary curtain poles. He claimed that these devices as closures were in general use during 1915-1917. The initial effect of this rather general testimony was, in my opinion, completely destroyed by a number of factors later developed both on his examination in chief and on cross-examination.
(1) Kraft was extremely vague as to the use of such a door. He could not recall the name of any competitor, any specific installation, or of any such doors having been produced since 1917. He did not claim the manufacture of any canvas closures except between 1915-1917, after which he used bamboo doors (or curtains) these being much easier to handle than canvas.7 (2) He could recall substantially nothing of his business during this possibly critical period, except the street location of his shop. He could recall no specific sales; had no records, models, sketches, pictures, and could not name a single manufacturer or purchaser, and he offered no substantiation or corroboration. (3) He admitted that his alleged device permitted some sagging. (4) In response to a written interrogatory as to prior invention, he had not named himself and in fact did not disclose this "anticipation" to his attorneys until in the courtroom after the trial had begun. (5) He identified defendants' model of Holtzclaw as similar to his door. This model in fact had glued short stiffeners for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diversified Products Corporation v. Sports Stores, Inc.
...a patent shall be presumed valid and that the burden of establishing invalidity rests upon the party asserting it. See Collins v. Kraft, 144 F.Supp. 162, 168 (D.Md.1956). However, the presumption is rebuttable. Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Alamance Industries, Inc., 299 F.2d 793, 801 (4th......
-
Porter-Cable Machine Co. v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co.
...valid and that the burden of establishing invalidity rests upon the party asserting it. As Judge Watkins said in Collins v. Kraft, 144 F.Supp. 162, at page 168 (D.Md., 1956): "The statutory presumption of validity from the issuance of a patent means that `the burden of proving want of novel......
-
Copease Mfg. Co. v. American Photocopy Equipment Co.
...by the district court until after an accounting had been had. They cite Pyle Nat. Co., v. Lewin, 7 Cir., 92 F.2d 628, 631; Collins v. Kraft, 144 F.Supp. 162, D.C.Md.; E-I-M Company v. Philadelphia Gear Works, Inc. 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 36; Miner v. T. H. Symington Co., 2 Cir., 247 F. We have exa......
-
Yardley Created Products Co. v. Clopay Corporation
...infringed and claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 11 invalid. In a prior case of which Clopay asks us to take judicial notice, Collins v. Kraft, District Court, Md., 1956, 144 F.Supp. 162, claim 10 of the original patent was found valid and ...