Diebold, Incorporated v. RECORD FILES, Civ. No. 27396.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 27396.
• Citation: 135 F. Supp. 74
• Parties: DIEBOLD, Incorporated, Walter F. Regenhardt, The Steel Storage File Company, Plaintiffs, v. RECORD FILES, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

135 F. Supp. 74

DIEBOLD, Incorporated, Walter F. Regenhardt, The Steel Storage File Company, Plaintiffs, v. RECORD FILES, Inc., Defendant.

Civ. No. 27396.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

October 3, 1955.

Warren H. F. Schmieding, Palmer Fultz, and Schmieding & Fultz, Columbus, Ohio, Clayton A. Quintrell, Cleveland, Ohio, for all plaintiffs, Diebold, Inc. Walter F. Regenhardt, The Steel Storage File Co.

Loren E. Souers, Sr., Loren E. Souers, Jr., Canton, Ohio, for plaintiff, Diebold, Inc.

George H. Barnard, Marion F. Graven, Wooster, Ohio, for plaintiff, The Steel Storage File Co.

H. F. McNenny, F. O. Richey, A. H. Edgerton, H. F. Schneider, H. E. Whitaker, and Richey, Watts, Edgerton & McNenny, Cleveland, Ohio, Robert Critchfield, Wooster, Ohio, for defendant, Record Files, Inc.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a suit for injunction based upon infringement of patents and for unfair competition. The defendant counterclaims for relief from alleged monopolistic practices of the plaintiffs.

Individuals connected with these parties have been in earlier litigation which seems to have been a family controversy. Judging by references to the earlier litigation, this action would appear to be a continuation of a fraternal feud.

Five patents are involved and certain specific claims of each are in issue.

It is in the interest of the parties and the business of the court that disposition of this suit be made promptly while the evidence is fresh in mind; and there would appear to be no reason why the court's responses to the issues should be the subject of lengthy discussions of them. It is thought sufficient briefly to state my findings and conclusions, and some comments thereon.

In reaching my determination I have given full recognition to the rule that there is an evidential presumption of validity which resides in the granting of a patent and that one who challenges validity by infringement has a heavy burden to overthrow that presumption and to establish invalidity.

Frankly, almost the entire field of the functional claims in the patents considered is more related to mechanical development and selection and to design and dimensions than it is to the realm of invention. To incorporate various elements singly or jointly in a combination, which elements have been disclosed and used before in the same or in other like arts does not constitute invention or give such elements or combinations inventive status.

I do not deem it necessary to analyze or compare the claims or the elements considered as affecting the question of validity, the experts have performed that function and service; it is enough that these record cases and files, together with the construction and the elements involved have been closely observed and deliberately judged by me as to the inventive character of the plaintiffs' claims in view of the charges of infringement:

(1) I find and conclude that claim 2 of plaintiffs' patent 2,123,803, directed to two door stops, is invalid in view of the prior art. The idea embodied in claim 2 of that patent clearly was anticipated and disclosed in the earlier patents cited and discussed such as Lang, Anderson, Rand and others;

(2) Likewise are my findings and conclusions as to invalidity of patent 2,386,343, claim 1 in issue. This patent relates to an interlock for locking a plurality of cases together to form a filing cabinet. I regret that again I can find no disclosure of an inventive character in this claim. It is rather mechanical selection of means already known and used in the record file art, including the element relied upon in plaintiffs' patent 2,169,769 (charge of infringement now withdrawn). The elements and purpose are the same, — to lock the cases securely together;

(3) Patent 2,256,352, claims 8 and 16, disclosing a "drawer follower" is nearer invention than others considered but I think lacks novelty enough to avoid the effect of disclosures of prior art patents such as Choate, Gollnick, Duncan, Hatfield and Burger;

(4) Claim 16 of patent 2,304,020 provides for a combination with means for locking casings adjacent to each other. I do not find any inventive character exhibited by this device and a finding and conclusion of invalidity will be made.

In the prior art Schriefer, relating to doors of a cabinet, is not a fatal anticipation but I regard Kuehl as a closer approach, although Sandman, I think, adequately presents anticipation.

(5) Claim 1 of patent 2,344,168 in issue relates to a drawer stop for preventing removal of the drawer in normal operation, but providing for removal by unusual rotating about its longitudinal axis when the drawer is extended. While the method of removing the drawer is unusual, yet I am unable...