Diamond International Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 April 1974 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 20809. |
Citation | 374 F. Supp. 1223,182 USPQ 147 |
Parties | DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation of Delaware, v. MARYLAND FRESH EGGS, INC., a corporation of Maryland. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
John W. Avirett, II and Paul V. Niemeyer, Baltimore, Md., Karl W. Flocks and Sheridan Neimark, Washington, D. C., and Sumner S. Kittelle, New York City, for plaintiff.
Benjamin C. Howard, Baltimore, Md., Truman A. Herron and Herbert C. Brinkman, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.
This is an action brought by Diamond International Corporation (hereinafter sometimes "Diamond" or "Plaintiff") against Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes "MFE" or "Defendant") for alleged infringement of United States Patent 2,990,094 (Reifers '094) issued June 27, 1961, on a continuation of a copending application filed December 16, 1953, which was in turn a continuation-in-part of an application filed May 24, 1952, for a "Molded Pulp Egg Carton." It is a product patent.
The Patent Office has determined that Reifers '094 is entitled to the filing date of May 24, 1952.
Dolco Packaging Corporation (hereinafter sometimes "Dolco") by agreement dated June 26, 1969, undertook to save MFE harmless with respect to Diamond's claim in this action; its defense is open and avowed; and it has engaged and is paying the (very able) attorneys who are defending MFE.1 It is jointly owned by Olson Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes "Olson") and Dow Chemical Company (hereinafter sometimes "Dow"), neither of which is a party to this suit.2
Jurisdiction and venue are admitted and were established.
In Diamond International Corporation v. Walterhoefer, 289 F.Supp. 550 (D.Md. 1968) (hereinafter "Walterhoefer"), the author of this opinion held Reifers '094 to be valid and infringed.3 No appeal was effected to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Plaintiff, of course, contends that the Walterhoefer decision is controlling. Defendant (equally), of course, contends that it is not. In general, Defendant urges that the decision in Walterhoefer was probably wrong, but that even if it were not, subsequently developed additional information, including additional patents; later decisions with respect to combination patents and fraud on the Patent Office; and the physical and geometrical properties of the accused structure should now lead to a different result. Alternatively, Defendant contends that Reifers '094, if valid, is so limited that it does not read on the accused device. Plaintiff counters that the accused device is the equivalent of that claimed in Reifers '094.
This litigation also has been vigorously contested.4
The claim in suit read as follows:
Plaintiff's cartons are integrally5 produced by a process of secretion of liberated wood or waste paper fibers, by suction imposed within a die of desired configuration, upon the exterior of the die. Defendant's cartons are6 of foamed polystyrene. The process begins with solid polystyrene in bead form. The beads are thermoplastic, and become a fluid consistency as heat is applied externally to an extruder. A gas (Freon) under high pressure is charged into the molten polystyrene in the extruder and diffuses into the polystyrene. Subsequently, the mass is partially cooled under the maintained pressure, and the mass is squeezed or extruded continuously out of a narrow circular annulus into the atmosphere in the form of a tube.
Upon release of pressure on extrusion, the diffused gas, aided by the prior incorporation of a nucleating agent, forms a myriad of tiny bubbles in the tube.
The tube passes over a cooled mandrel which expands the diameter of the tube and coincidentally causes the tube material to be stretched circumferentially, building what is called transverse axial orientation into the material and strengthening it. Coincidentally the tube is subjected to longitudinal stretch by means of pull rolls, which also improves the toughness of the material.
The moving tube is slitted longitudinally by a stationary knife at a point beyond the stretching mandrel. The slitted tube is then laid open as a continuous flat sheet and is rolled upon itself as roll stock.
To make an egg carton, the flat sheet material fed from the roll is led to a thermoforming machine in which it is gradually reheated to render it thermoplastic, but without bursting the contained bubbles. When suitably thermoplastic, a length is advanced to a position between chilled or cooled dies having non-porous mating faces of the desired egg carton shape. These dies, brought toward one another, deform the sheet. The cooled dies cool the thermoplastic sheet material so that it becomes immobilized.
The next step is the punching of holes or apertures in the cover for the reception of lugs formed by the dies.
Finally, the excess marginal portions of the sheet are trimmed by cutting dies which separate the formed cartons from the sheet margins. The trimmings and aperture punchings are reground and recharged to the extruder.
The Court's comments by way of partial summary were as follows:
Defendant urges that the decision in Walterhoefer is not controlling, on a number of grounds:
1. Koppelman Patent No. 2,093,280, issued September 14, 1937, on application filed December 6, 1934, for "Self-Locking Carton and Packing." a. In Walterhoefer, Koppelman was urged as a defense under 35 U.S.C. Section 103—obviousness. In this case the Defendant vacillates in its briefs from a claim of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Section 102, to anticipation under Section 103 if coupled with another patent, or other patents. However, in the final arguments Defendant admitted,8 albeit reluctantly, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. US
...that was not known at the time of the invention. WALKER ON PATENTS, § 415 (1917 and 1929 eds.); Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 1223, 182 USPQ 147 (D.C.Md.1974); Waterproof Insulation Corp. v. Insulating Concrete Corp., 153 F.Supp. 626, 114 USPQ 265 In view of ......
-
Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
...the thing patented," which indicate that infringement should not be found. (emphasis added)); see also Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 1223, 1247 (D.Md.1974) (noting that it is the "really meritorious improver" who deserves the benefit of the concept of the rev......
-
Johnson & Johnson v. WL Gore & Assoc., Inc.
...inapplicable. For infringement, the equivalent need not have been known at the time of the invention. Diamond International Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 1223 (D.Md.1974). As this Court noted in its earlier decision on summary It is well established that an inventor is ent......
-
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION INVOLVING FROST PAT.
...standards may have developed in the years subsequent to the patent prosecution at issue. See, Diamond International Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 1223, 1248 (D. Md.1974). In light of these difficulties, Judge McLean's opinion in RCA seems to this Court to strike a reasonab......