Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutter Laboratories, 26970-R.
| Decision Date | 09 August 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 26970-R.,26970-R. |
| Citation | 78 F. Supp. 903 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | LYOPHILE-CRYOCHEM CORPORATION et al. v. CUTTER LABORATORIES, Inc. |
Naylor & Lassagne and Theodore H. Lassange, all of San Francisco, Cal., and Frank E. Barrows and Roger T. McLean, both of New York City, for plaintiffs.
Mellin & Hanscom, Oscar A. Mellin, LeRoy Hanscom, and Jack E. Hursh, all of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
The various motions of the defendant heretofore made, argued and submitted are now decided as follows:
I
The motion of the defendant, Cutter Laboratories, Inc., made on July 30, 1948, for a directed verdict for the defendant upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint, on which ruling was reserved by the court, is hereby denied.
II
The motion of the defendant, Cutter Laboratories, Inc., made on August 2, 1948, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the motion in the alternative for a new trial are, and each of them is, hereby denied.
The question of the invalidity of the patents in suit, Reichel, Re. 20,969 and Flosdorf 2,345,548, and the question of the infringement of certain claims, 6, 11, 12, 13 as to Reichel, and 4 and 5 as to Flosdorf, were submitted to the jury under instructions which were not excepted to by either side.
The plaintiffs' action being at law, they were entitled to have these issues determined by a jury. Its determination should stand, unless I am convinced that the conclusion was so erroneous, from a legal standpoint, as to call for a verdict for the defendant, notwithstanding the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, or was so contrary by the weight of the evidence as to warrant the court's granting a new trial. A directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict would be justified in this case only if I were convinced that the interpretation of the patent, which is at all times a judicial function, spells invalidity upon any of the grounds advanced by the defendant, such as lack of invention, anticipation and the like. Rightly. For, of necessity, such interpretation would involve a purely legal question. See my recent opinion in Boulter v. Commercial Standars Ins. Co., 78 F. Supp. 895.
However, a study of the problem leads me to the conclusion that none of the defenses presented by the defendant can be solved on legal grounds alone. I can find neither defect in the claims, nor estoppel in the Patent Office, nor anticipation in the prior art, as a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storey v. Camper
...N.D., 20 F.Supp. 782, 783 (1937)) and the motion should be granted only in "extreme cases" (Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutler Laboratories, Inc., D.Ct., N.D., Cal., S.D., 78 F.Supp. 903 (1948), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 9th Cir., 179 F.2d 80 (1949)). See also McCloskey v. McKelvey, s......
-
Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc.
... ... plaintiff-appellant, sued Park & Tilford Distiller's Corp., 1 the defendant-appellee, for compensation that he ... In Lyophile-Cryochem 278 F.2d 90 Corp. v. Cutter Laboratories, Inc., D.C ... ...
-
Labuff v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company
... ... Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967; Chappell ... Southern Pac. Co., D.C., 71 F.Supp. 955; Lyophile-Cryochem ... 955; Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutter ... 955; Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutter Laboratories ... ...
-
Creagh v. United Fruit Company
... ... Cal.1947, 71 F.Supp. 955, 962; Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutter Laboratories, D.C.N.D.Cal.1948, 78 F.Supp ... ...