General Plastic Corp. v. Finkelstein, Civ. A. 20314.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 20314. |
| Citation | 110 USPQ 192,145 F. Supp. 862 |
| Parties | GENERAL PLASTIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. William FINKELSTEIN, Joseph Finkelstein, Leonard Kolker, Sab Finkelstein (also known as Sabbaghal Finkelstein), Individually and as partners trading as Philadelphia Brief Case Company. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Louis Necho, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Harry Langsam, Stanley Bilker, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This case is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment in an action brought on February 29, 1956, for alleged patent infringement. The question posed is whether the defendant has acquired "intervening rights" prior to the reissue of plaintiff's patent.
On July 24, 1951, Martin M. Drogin filed an application for patent on a plastic and metal luggage handle.1 Prior to its issuance on May 4, 1954, Drogin assigned the patent to plaintiff. On December 31, 1951, defendant filed his application for a similar luggage handle. The patent was granted on May 18, 1954. Defendant has made and sold a great number of handles modeled after his patented article.
On March 21, 1955 plaintiff filed an application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 251 for a reissue of its original patent. The reissue, containing two claims, was granted on October 4, 1955. The wording of Claim 1 is identical with that of Claim 1 of the original Drogin patent except for a substitution of "a flexible inverted generally U-shaped strap", for "a flexible inverted V-shaped strap", and the addition of the following description: "the ends of said strap extending below said molded body member for engagement with said piece of luggage." Both the mistaken description and the failure to add the quoted description were made by the inventor without any deceptive intention. Except for the deletion of the description: "Web connecting said lugs to said side walls", Claim 2 of the reissue is identical in wording with Claim 1. Plaintiff admits that as a result of the deletion Claim 2 is broader than Claim 1 of the original Drogin Patent.
Defendant, in support of his motion for summary judgment, maintains that the change in the wording of Claim 1 of the reissue prevents that claim from being "identical" with the claim of the patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 252. Were we to read the claim of the Drogin Patent independent of the drawings and specification, such a claim would be incomplete, and the description "a flexible inverted V-shaped strap" would have to be accepted as meaning exactly what it said. But this we are not permitted to do. It is elementary that the claim is to be read in the light of the disclosure on the specification. See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 1917, 243 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Industries, Inc.
...of language, and addition of word "activation" to conform to earlier reference in claim); General Plastic Corp. v. Finkelstein, 145 F.Supp. 862, 863-64, 110 USPQ 192, 193 (E.D.Pa.1956) (claim held "identical" because substitution of "generally U-shaped" for "inverted V-shaped" stated what w......
-
Johnston v. Textron
...implication; I do not agree it was "inherent" in the original claim. The plaintiffs cite in support General Plastics Corporation of America v. Finkelstein, 145 F.Supp. 862 (E.D.Pa.1956). This case can only be apposite if it can be said that the reissued claim in this case merely corrected a......
-
Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Properties, Inc., Civ. A. No. C78-1798A.
...strap" as well as the addition of a description of a strap for a patented plastic and metal luggage handle. General Plastic Corp. v. Finkelstein, 145 F.Supp. 862 (E.D.Penn. 1956). With regard to the correction of language regarding the shape of the strap, the court noted that "it is element......
-
TJ Smith and Nephew Ltd. v. Parke, Davis & Co.
...that such a determination cannot be made solely on the basis of the language of the claims.12 In General Plastic Corporation of America v. Finkelstein, 145 F.Supp. 862 (E.D.Penn.1956), as in this case, the court confronted, on a motion for summary judgment, the issue of whether a claim in a......