JR Clark Company v. Geuder, Paeschke & Frey Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. 6296.
• Citation: 159 F. Supp. 948
• Parties: The J. R. CLARK COMPANY and John R. Clark, Plaintiffs, v. GEUDER, PAESCHKE & FREY CO., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

159 F. Supp. 948

The J. R. CLARK COMPANY and John R. Clark, Plaintiffs, v. GEUDER, PAESCHKE & FREY CO., Defendant.

Civ. A. 6296.

United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.

December 19, 1957.

Morsell & Morsell, Milwaukee, Wis., Douglas L. Carlsen, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.

Michael, Spohn, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

TEHAN, Chief Judge.

The above matter having come on for trial to the Court, and this Court upon full consideration of all the evidence, pleadings, depositions and exhibits and all the proceedings herein finds as follows:

Findings of Fact.

1. This, a Civil Action, was instituted May 12, 1954, for infringement of K. B. Olander patent No. 2,663,102, for Ironing Table, granted December 22, 1953, on an application filed in the United States Patent Office on June 9, 1950. Issue was joined on May 27, 1954.

2. Claim 1 of the patent is relied upon by plaintiffs as having been infringed by the defendant, and, as corrected by Certificate of Correction, dated February 16, 1954, reads as follows:

"1. In an ironing table having an elongated ironing board, a supporting structure for the board comprising a front leg member and a rear leg member respectively secured at longitudinally spaced points to the underside of the board and extending angularly downwardly to cross each other at a point above their longitudinal centers whereby the lower ends of the leg members will be spread further apart than their upper ends, said members consisting of single bars pivoted together at their intersection and with their parts above the intersection lying adjacent to the vertical longitudinal plane of one lateral edge of the board, and the lower ends of the leg members having rigid transverse extensions underlying the table to support the table against lateral tilting."

3. The defendant's accused ironing table is designated and known as the Model C-690.

4. By a stipulation dated August 15, 1956 and filed at a pre-trial conference before the Court on September 11, 1956, the parties agreed that the only issues to be presented for trial were as follows: (a) Is the aforesaid claim 1 of the Olander patent 2,663,102 infringed by defendant's Model C-690 ironing table? and, (b) Is said claim rendered invalid by U. S. patent to Busch, et al., No. 863,150, issued August 13, 1907; U. S. patent to Pope, No. 1,098,682, issued June 2, 1914; U. S. patent to Lowenberg, No. 1,976,031, issued October 9, 1934; and by an ironing table known as the "Mary Proctor" that was made by Proctor Electric Company, and was sold August 25, 1949?

5. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter. Trial was had to the Court without a jury starting January 28, 1957 and concluding on January 29, 1957. The evidence consisted of physical and documentary exhibits, answers to interrogatories filed by both parties, depositions, and the testimony of witnesses at the trial. Extensive briefs were filed on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant, and have been supplemented by oral arguments.

6. The evidence shows that hand ironing is probably one of the most tiring, disagreeable and frustrating tasks that the housewife has to perform. The fatigue factor has been the subject of scientific studies, and a great deal of thought and effort has been expended in attempting to make hand ironing easier and less disagreeable.

7. An ironing table so constructed as to permit the operator to sit comfortably on a chair and with the top member well in over her lap, would obviously reduce fatigue. But for certain types of work the table must also be vertically adjustable to an elevation such that the operator may stand up while ironing. And, whether sitting or standing, the ironing table should also be adjustable within lesser limits to accommodate relatively tall and short women.

8. The problem involved in constructing such an ironing table was well known in the industry long prior to the Olander invention. Defendant's sales manager admitted that it had been known for many years. But there is not evidence that the problem was ever successfully solved by others prior to the Olander invention.

9. Prior patents illustrating earlier attempts to design an ironing table which an operator could iron on while sitting and with sufficient knee space clearance so that the top member could be brought in close to the operator's body, include D. H. Clark, 2,494,506; Michelson, 2,011,251; and Krueger, 2,666,668. These patents disclose ironing tables which do not structurally or functionally respond to the Olander invention, are impractical, do not solve the problems solved by Olander, and there is no evidence that any of them were ever made, sold or used.

10. The Kalgren patent, 1,637,526, issued in 1937, illustrates an ironing table made and sold by the corporate plaintiff about thirty years ago, which, if used by an operator when sitting, would provide as much knee space clearance as in the Mary Proctor ironing table relied upon by defendant, but the Kalgren disclosure does not respond to the claim in suit, and like the Mary Proctor structure, did not solve the problem that was solved by the Olander invention.

11. The ironing table shown and described in the Olander patent is so constructed that it can be readily adjusted to various sit-down and stand-up positions, to accommodate short or tall operators, the supporting structure including pivotally connected single bar leg members the upper portions of which are disposed adjacent to the vertical plane of one lateral edge of the top member, providing knee and leg space so that the operator can position the top member directly and fully over her lap; while the leg members are pivoted above their longitudinal centers so as to span a wide floor supporting area and thus form a rigid supporting structure for the top member regardless of the elevation to which it is adjusted.

12. After perfecting his invention and filing the application for his patent in June, 1950, Mr. Olander, and the corporate plaintiff, The J. R. Clark Company, went into production, and built up a sufficient supply to meet the anticipated demand for the ironing table when ready for distribution and sales. It was then first displayed to the public at the National Housewares Exhibit in Chicago in January 1953.

13. The Olander ironing table, then designated as the Clark Model No. 10, was considered by other representatives of the ironing table industry, who were present at the Chicago Exhibit, as not only being radically different from any other ironing tables that were then or had ever been on the market, but one that would solve what had been a serious problem of long standing.

14. The January 1953 Exhibit was attended by representatives of defendant, including its president and its sales manager, who, after seeing the Clark No. 10 ironing table promptly ordered one and immediately took steps to produce and place on the market a competitive ironing table which would have many of the structural and functional features and advantages of the Clark Model No. 10.

15. Thereupon defendant, by a management directive, instructed its design engineer "to build a board (ironing table) in competition with Clark's new board—which had been seen at the Housewares show—in January 1953", and such an ironing table, being the accused Model C-690, was then promptly developed, put in production, and placed on the market.

16. Defendant's Model C-690 was first sold by defendant in October 1953, but has been widely advertised since July 1953 and to the present time. Such advertisements, appearing in nationally distributed publications, have characterized the Model C-690 as "sensational" and as a "radically new design".

17. The Model C-690...