Freeman-Sweet Co. v. Luminous Unit Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | 2651. |
| Citation | 264 F. 107 |
| Parties | FREEMAN-SWEET CO. et al. v. LUMINOUS UNIT CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Motion for Specific Directions in the Matter of Costs, for Cancellation of Bond, March 15, 1920. March 15, 1920.
Paul Bakewell, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.
Dodson & Roe, of Chicago, Ill. (Harry Lea Dodson, of Chicago, Ill of counsel), for appellee.
Before BAKER, MACK, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
The opinion sustaining the validity of letters patent No 1,076,418 and finding infringement of claim 1, but not of claim 2, thereof, is reported in 249 F. 876. In a prior suit by appellee against R. Williamson & Co., both claim 1 and claim 2 were found valid and infringed. 241 F. 265, affirmed in this court 245 F. 988, . . . C.C.A. . . . . The facts except those hereinafter set forth, bearing upon the making of appellant the Reflectolyte Co., a party defendant, will be found fully stated in these opinions.
1. This former decision, to which these appellants were not parties, is, of course, not res adjudicata as to them. But it is more than persuasive; the validity of a patent, once sustained on appeal by this court, is not subject to complete re-examination at the instance of each subsequent alleged infringer. Unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the determination by this court of the validity of a patent on full hearing in a contested suit, will not be reconsidered. New matter, not theretofore introduced in evidence, and not merely cumulative in character, will be given full consideration; even the conclusions reached on the former evidence may be challenged as clearly erroneous. But the fact that alleged anticipating patents, or the file wrapper and contents, though in the record, are not specifically discussed in the earlier opinion, is of course, far from a demonstration, or even a suggestion, that they were not duly weighed or that the conclusions reached on the former record are clearly wrong.
We have, however, in view of the earnest appeal of counsel, re- examined these matters, as well as the additional patents and other evidence appearing in this record; the latter is clearly but cumulative; the former does not change the conclusions heretofore arrived at as to the validity of the claims.
2. Infringement.-- While the language of the claims was changed from time to time to meet the Examiner's objections, at no time did the applicant, either voluntarily or to meet a specific objection, limit himself to a 'wholly flat' reflector. In fact, the omission from claim 1 of the word 'wholly,' used in claim 2, is a clear indication that applicant did not intend to make an absolutely flat form an essential element in the claim, so as to waive any equivalent that would secure the same result in substantially the same manner.
Giving the claim only the most limited range of equivalents, in holding it to cover, as an element in the combination, a reflector not absolutely flat, but deviating therefrom only to an extent that no substantial change whatsoever in function, result, or operation is thereby involved, defendants clearly infringe.
3. While an uncertified copy of its own record in the earlier case was inadmissible in evidence, no harm resulted, inasmuch as it was unnecessary to introduce the record; the court takes judicial notice of its records for all proper purposes.
The copy, however, was not introduced, and was not used for the improper purpose of bringing into this case, as evidence bearing upon the merits of the controversy, the testimony there given; the sole purpose was to show on what matters the decision in the former case was or might have been based, so as to make clear the extent and the bearings of the conclusions there reached.
4. At the trial, counsel of record for the sole defendant Freeman-Sweet Company, stated, in answer to an inquiry, that he had been employed and was compensated by the appellant the Reflectolyte Company to defend this suit brought against its vendee; he conceded that it was privy to the case and that the decision to be rendered would be res adjudicata as to it as well as to the Freeman-Sweet Company, on the questions of validity and infringement, but he objected to having his employer appellant the Reflectolyte Company, made a party defendant to this suit, claiming for it the privilege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SS Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co., 10818-10820.
...denied 280 U.S. 609, 50 S.Ct. 158, 74 L.Ed. 652; Gibson v. Eastern Rim & Wheel Co., 3 Cir., 32 F.2d 774, 775; Freeman-Sweet Co. v. Luminous Unit Co., 7 Cir., 264 F. 107, 109, certiorari denied 253 U.S. 486, 40 S.Ct. 482, 64 L.Ed. 1025. There are some District Court and State decisions to th......
-
Luminous Unit Co. v. Freeman-Sweet Co.
...and the decree in its favor, finding claim 1 valid and infringed, and directing an accounting, was affirmed by this court on appeal. 264 F. 107. Thereafter the mandate of this court was duly issued, and in conformity therewith a decree was entered in the District Court. Thereafter a motion ......
-
Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Thermoco, Inc.
...to defend this very action. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U.S. 22, 29-32, 36 S.Ct. 477, 60 L.Ed. 868; Freeman-Sweet Co. v. Luminous Unit Co., 7 Cir., 264 F. 107. Cf. S. S. Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co., 8 Cir., 96 F.2d 978, 989. If, on the other hand, the Perfex Companies on t......
-
Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele
...suit in behalf of the defendant does not justify his being made a party defendant in derogation of this statute. Freeman-Sweet Co. v. Luminous Unit Co. (C. C. A. 7th) 264 F. 107; Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Winton Hotel Co. (D. C.) 263 F. 988; Parsons Non-Skid Co. v. E. J. Willis Co. (......