Hieger v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | 74-2071,Nos. 74-2070,s. 74-2070 |
| Citation | 186 USPQ 374,516 F.2d 1324 |
| Parties | Robert H. HIEGER, and Robert H. Elliott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Robert H. Hieger, in pro per.
Robert H. Elliott, in pro per.
Robert E. McCollum, Dearborn, Mich., George N. Hibben, Hibben, Noyes & Bicknell, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
U.S.Patent No. 3,026,900 was issued to Robert H. Hieger on March 27, 1962. This action was filed by the owners of the patent against Ford Motor Company, charging infringement. Ford denied infringement and also challenged the validity of the patent. In comprehensive findings of fact the District Court found non-infringement. The patent was adjudged to be valid in the following single sentence: "Based on the presumption of validity, the patent is valid."
The owners of the patent appeal from the finding of non-infringement. Ford cross-appeals, contending that the District Court did not inquire fully into the validity of the patent on the issues of anticipation and obviousness, and that there should be no adjudication of validity in this situation. Ford contends that the judgment of the District Court on the issue of validity should be reversed.
We affirm the finding of non-infringement and vacate the judgment as to the validity of the patent.
The Hieger patent discloses a bent spring wire clip used in the assembly of automobile carburetors. The specific shape of the clip and the method of installation which is made possible by the clip are the two allegedly novel features of the invention. The accused devices are bent spring wire clips and are used by Ford Motor Company to join the same carburetor components as in Hieger. The District Court carefully compared the limits of the Hieger claims with the shape and method of installation of the accused devices, and made the following findings:
None of the accused Ford retainers infringe any of the claims of the Hieger patent either literally or in substance.
(a) None of the accused Ford retainers comes within the literal language of the Hieger patent claims.
(b) There is no real identity of means, operation and result between the accused retainers and the retainer defined by the Hieger patent claims.
(c) The accused retainers omit a structural element of the claim because they do not have legs depending from the central portion of a U-shaped clip but, in contrast, are provided with hooked ends for gripping engagement with the float shaft.
(d) The accused retainers do not respond to the functional limitations of the claims which serve to define a structure having the claimed function. The accused retainers are not so "arranged and dimensioned" that they are installed by defendant in a carburetor float bowl by first positioning the back of the retainer in the groove of the valve seat and then by pivoting the retainer about said valve seat to cause the free ends of the retainer to move over the shaft grooves into holding position as required by the claims. As a matter of practical and acceptable assembly line and service procedure, the accused Ford retainers are incapable of being installed in carburetor float bowls in the manner defined by the functional limitations of the Hieger patent claims.
(e) While the accused retainers, like the patented Hieger clip and the prior art Ford retainers, accomplish a similar result, namely, holding down the float shaft and locking the float in the float bowl, the accused retainers do not infringe because they accomplish that old hold-down function by a substantially different means, by a substantially different mode of operation and by a substantially different method of assembly and installation than the patented Hieger clip.
(f) None of the accused Ford retainers is an equivalent of the patented Hieger clip.
Our review of the record convinces us that these findings are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), but to the contrary are supported by substantial evidence.
Ford pleaded the defense of invalidity in its answer to Hieger's complaint, on the issues of anticipation, 35 U.S.C. § 102, obviousness,35 U.S.C. § 103, and vagueness, 35 U.S.C. § 112. The findings of the District Court reflect only a limited inquiry into the factual basis of these issues. The adjudication on this issue appears to be based entirely on the statutory presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282. In our opinion this finding is an inadequate basis for a determination of validity, and the judgment of the District Court must be vacated insofar as the patent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickola v. Peterson
...Inc., 522 F.2d 1137 (CA 6, 1975); and because of the 'blight' on free commerce which is imposed by an invalid patent. Hieger v. Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 1324 (CA 6, 1975) (Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976))." (Id. at 596-97, 193 USPQ at The Issue The dispositi......
-
National Rolled Thread Die Co. v. E. W. Ferry Screw Products, Inc.
...under 35 U.S.C. § 103; 2) the Court failed to make express factual findings of non-obviousness as required by Hieger v. Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 1324 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976); and, 3) the Court allowed the reissue patent a presumption......
-
TWM Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dura Corp.
...contends that the court committed the following errors: (1) The court failed to make factual findings as required by Hieger v. Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 1324 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976). (2) The court failed to consider evidence that would......
- Kalman v. Berlyn Corp.
-
Declaratory judgment actions, covenants not to sue, and bad patents: a call to allow the judiciary to weed out bad patents while adhering to the "case or controversy" requirement.
...granted). (433) See 35 U.S.C. [section] 100, 101 (2012) (explaining what constitutes a novel patent). (434) See Hieger v. Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 1324, 1327 (6th Cir. 1975) (stating "[i]t is now well recognized that an invalid patent is a blight on 'the important public interest in permitt......