Joyce, Inc. v. Solnit, 379-Y.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 379-Y.,379-Y. |
| Citation | 29 F. Supp. 787 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | JOYCE, Inc., v. SOLNIT et al. |
Herbert A. Huebner, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Frank L. A. Graham, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 2,067,963, relating to footwear, issued on January 19, 1937, and owned by plaintiff as successor to Pasadena Slipper Co. The defendants have denied infringement and have challenged the validity of the four claims of the patent in suit.
Plaintiff and defendants have long been in the same competitive field of shoe manufacturing. The defendant Maling secured, on March 14, 1939, letters patent No. 2,150,385, under which it is claimed the accused devices are being made.
Many samples of the plaintiff's and defendants' shoes have been placed before the Court. With the aid of experts, they have been cut apart and dissected to show similarity or dissimilarity. There is similarity of appearance between them. In fact, it may be conceded, that some of the copies show an attempt to imitate, in a cheaper structure, the pattern and color scheme of the plaintiff. Notwithstanding this fact, however, I am of the view that there is no infringement here.
The plaintiff's shoes have novelty and have had great commercial success.
However, the invention of Joyce over the prior art is limited to a small contribution only which is described in claim 1 as "a midsole member comprising a sole portion and heel lift portion with a beveled upper face in contact with the sole portion, said midsole member being of relatively thick cushioning material having a substantially flat lower surface and shaped to extend completely over the lower surface of said insole, a covering of relatively thin material extending about the edges of said midsole member, means for securing the upper surface only of said midsole member to the insole,".
The drawings illustrative of the claims are:
We are not dealing with a method of shoe construction. The claims for such method (called "slipper and method for making the same") were rejected in the patent office and the present claims for "footwear" substituted.
In other words, we have a shoe of particular construction. Clearly, a combination of certain definite elements.
The accused device does not contain the essential elements of this combination, — a midsole member as described in the patent, and a covering over the midsole member. The laminated heel lift is clearly of the wedge-type, long known to the art. Its construction conforms to that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Brode Milling Co. v. Cox Air Gauge System
...Oriental Foods, Inc., v. Chun King Sales, Inc., 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 909, 915-916. 6 See the writer's opinion in Joyce, Inc., v. Solnit, D.C.Cal.1939, 29 F.Supp. 787; and see, Anderson v. Phoenix Products Co., 7 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 191, 193. A patentee cannot claim more than he invented.......
-
Joyce, Inc. v. Fern Shoe Co.
...were duly noticed, and came up for hearing before me on March 25, 1940. The patent in issue was before me in Joyce, Inc., v. Solnit, D.C.Cal.1939, 29 F. Supp. 787, 43 U.S.P.Q. 233. In substance, I there held that the four claims of the patent were valid, although not infringed by the accuse......
-
Kammerer Corporation v. McCullough
...200 F. 411; Bankers' Utilities Co., Inc., v. Pacific National Bank, 9 Cir., 1927, 18 F.2d 16; and see my opinions in Joyce, Inc., v. Solnit, D.C.Cal.1940, 29 F.Supp. 787; Joyce, Inc., v. Fern Shoe Co., D.C.Cal.1940, 32 F.Supp. 401. Where, however, there is no dedication to public use, and a......
-
Blanchard v. JL Pinkerton, Inc.
...Patent No. 668302, Singleton Patent No. 7767, Humphrey Patent No. 796516, and Wyatt Patent No. 105289. See my opinion in Joyce, Inc., v. Solnit, 1939, 29 F.Supp. 787. The device is intended for use in conjunction with the operation of valves and outlets for steam boilers. More particularly,......