Mattel, Inc. v. Hyatt
| Decision Date | 21 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80-5070,Nos. 80-5069,s. 80-5069 |
| Parties | MATTEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert P. HYATT, Defendant-Appellant. MATTEL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert P. HYATT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward F. McKie, Jr., Schuyler, Birch, Swindler, McKie & Beckett, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Morgan Chu, Barry Jablon, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHOY, Circuit Judge, KASHIWA, * Associate Judge, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
Mattel, Inc. (Mattel) initiated these actions, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity with respect to United States Letters Patent 4,016,540 (the '540 patent), issued to Gilbert P. Hyatt, and 4,038,640 (the '640 patent), issued to Gilbert P. Hyatt, among others, and assigned to Micro Computer, Inc. (MCI). Hyatt counterclaimed, alleging that certain handheld electronic games manufactured by Mattel infringed claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-15 of the '640 patent, as well as claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19 and 20 of the '540 patent. In addition, Hyatt filed several counterclaims based upon state law, including a count alleging unfair competition.
The District Court, prior to trial, dismissed all counterclaims except those alleging patent infringement. After trial on the issues of invalidity, the District Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law holding all claims of the '640 patent invalid and not infringed, and each of the contested claims of the '540 patent invalid and not infringed.
On appeal, Hyatt challenges the District Court's determinations of obviousness with respect to all contested claims of the '540 and '640 patents, and of an invalidating prior use or sale with respect to all claims of the '640 patent. Hyatt also contests the District Court's dismissal of the counterclaim for unfair competition. We note jurisdiction and affirm.
The District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were drafted by counsel for Mattel and adopted by the trial judge with minor modifications. We have indicated in previous rulings that this practice may be acceptable in cases involving complex technical or scientific proof, but that such findings, on appeal, must be subjected to "painstaking review." Photo Electronics Corp. v. England, 581 F.2d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 1978); Industrial Building Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 437 F.2d 1336, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1970).
Nevertheless, the findings of fact supporting the lower court's determinations of invalidity must stand on appeal unless we are convinced that such findings are clearly erroneous. Astro Music v. Eastham, 564 F.2d 1236, 1237 (9th Cir. 1977); Photo Electronics, supra, at 777.
The claims of the '640 patent are directed to two inventions. The first comprehends an interactive panel device in which control (input) and display (output) elements are defined and mediated under program control, or "soft-wired." The second invention contemplates a computerized "refresh" arrangement whereby the numeric display elements of the panel are actuated, sustained, and updated under program control without significant interference with other processing tasks.
The '540 patent recites a system for the storage, processing, and generation of sound information, using monolithic, or integrated circuit, technology.
The District Court concluded that each of the contested claims of the '640 and '540 patents was invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 1
Our review of the complete trial transcript, the claims of the patents in question, and the prior art upon which the trial judge rested his conclusions of obviousness discloses no clear error. We conclude that the District Court properly applied the test set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). 2 Furthermore, we affirm the District Court's conclusion that Mattel proved the obviousness of the contested claims by clear and convincing evidence. See Santa-Fe Pomeroy, Inc. v. P & Z Co., 569 F.2d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 1978); Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc., 532 F.2d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 1976).
The District Court also determined that the invention disclosed by the '640 patent was, for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 3 "on sale" prior to December 28, 1969, the earliest critical date which could conceivably be claimed by the patentee. This conclusion is supported by the following findings.
First, the District Court found that Hyatt's company, MCI, entered into a purchase agreement on June 30, 1969, with DS America, Inc. (DS/A), an unaffiliated corporation, for delivery of certain controller apparatus for photo-optical equipment. Second, the lower court found that all claims of the '640 patent were physically reduced to practice by September or October, 1969, and that demonstrations involving DS/A personnel took place during the last week of September, 1969, and on December 1, 1969. Formal acceptance of the device did not take place until December 29, 1969, one day after the critical date. Our review discloses no clear error in these findings.
On appeal, Hyatt contends that no precedent can be found to support the proposition that a reduction to practice of the '640 panel invention, during the performance of an executory sales contract, constituted a commercial exploitation of the device sufficient to invoke the statutory bar. However, it seems clear that the December 1, 1969, demonstration was a commercial display or offering within the context of our prior ruling in Tucker Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1963). See also Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co., 482 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1973).
Finally,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California
...to be related, at least part of the proof in support of the pendent claim must be common to the federal claims. Mattel, Inc. v. Hyatt, 664 F.2d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir.1981). The court has difficulty in seeing an overlap between the patent infringement claim and the misappropriation of trade s......
-
Genband U.S. LLC v. Metaswitch Networks LTD
...§ 1338(b)... jurisdiction of pendent claims in the district court does not compel exercise of that jurisdiction"); Mattel, Inc. v. Hyatt , 664 F.2d 757, 760–61 (9th Cir. 1981) ("For a federal court to exercise pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), a ‘considerable overlap’ between ......
-
State v. 6635 N. 19TH Ave., Inc.
...be reversed only if clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985); see also Mattel, Inc. v. Hyatt, 664 F.2d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, absent clear error, we must accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law signed by the superior co......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. GMB Universal Joints (West), Inc.
......Draper, 735 F.2d at 428, and the federal and state claims considerably overlap here. Mattel, Inc. v. Hyatt, . Page 861. 664 F.2d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir.1981). Thus, we remand for further proceedings on Ford's state law claims. III. THE ......