Sanitary Refrigerator Co v. Winters Winters v. Dent Hardware Co 19 22, 1929
Decision Date | 14 October 1929 |
Docket Number | 14,Nos. 4,s. 4 |
Citation | 280 U.S. 30,74 L.Ed. 147,50 S.Ct. 9 |
Parties | SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO., Petitioner, v. WINTERS et al. WINTERS et al. v. DENT HARDWARE CO. Argued April 19-22, 1929 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 30-32 intentionally omitted] Mr. E. Hayward Fairbanks, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Dent Hardware Co. and Sanitary Refrigerator Co.
Messrs. John Boyle, Jr., of Washington, D. C., and Frank E. Liverance Jr., of Grand Rapids, Mich., for Winters et al.
These are two suits in equity relating to letters patent No. 1,385,102 for improvements in latches, issued to Winters and Crampton July 19, 1921. They were heard together here. The invalidity of the two general claims of the patent, 5 and 6, has been conceded, and the issues here are limited to the five specific claims, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.
In No. 4-hereinafter referred to as the Sanitary case-Winters and Crampton brought suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Sanitary Refrigerator Co. for infringement of the patent by the latch which it used in the manufacture of refrigerators. The Dent Hardware Co., which had manufactured and sold the latches to the Refrigerator Co., although not itself a party to the suit, employed counsel and conducted the defense of the suit at its own expense. The District Court, after a hearing on pleadings and proof, held that the patent was valid and infringed, enjoined further infringement and ordered an accounting. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the defendant admitted the validity of the five specific claims, 'accompanied by the statement that validity was recognized only in view of an asserted construction which gave to each claim so narrow a field that infringement was not disclosed.' The court, finding that the sole issue remaining was one of the infringement of these claims, held that, while they were extremely narrow and were restricted to the particular structure disclosed, they had some range of equivalency and were infringed by the defendant's latch; and affirmed the decree of the District Court in respect to them. 24 F.(2d) 15, 16.
In No. 14-hereinafter referred to as the Dent case-Winters and Crampton, after the decree of the District Court in the Sanitary case but before that of the Circuit Court of Appeals, brought a suit for infringement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Dent Hardware Co., the manufacturer of the refrigerator latches. The District Court, on final hearing, held that as to the five specific claims the question was not as to their validity but as to their scope, there being in effect no denial of the plaintiff's right to the specific construction described, and that these claims should be so read as to restrict their right to the specific construction and was not infringed by the defendant's latches; and dismissed the bill of complaint. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the defendant again conceded that the five claims were 'valid if limited to the specific structure disclosed,' but claimed that when so limited, it did not infringe. The court, while it had grave doubt as to the validity of these claims, finding that, if valid, their scope was clearly confined to the structural design dis- closed and had only a narrow range of equivalency-and not agreeing with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sanitary case, which meanwhile had been handed down-held that they were not infringed by the Dent latch; and affirmed 'the decree of the District Court, dismissing the bill because of noninfringement.' 28 F.(2d) 583, 586.
There being a conflict of opinion between the two Circuit Courts of Appeals on the question of infringement, writs of certiorari were thereafter granted in both cases.1
1. Since both courts in the Sanitary case held the five specific claims to be valid, and neither court in the Dent case held them to be invalid, and the Hardware Co. in defending for the Refrigerator Co. in the Sanitary case and for itself in the Dent case, admitted in both Circuit Courts of Appeals that these claims were valid if limited to the specific structure disclosed, we have no occasion here to determine the question as to the validity of these claims when thus limited; especially as the petition for certiorari in the Sanitary case did not question the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in respect to the validity of these claims, but assigned as error merely its holding in reference to the question of infringement and was based solely on the conflict between the two circuits in respect to that question. 2
2. Nor have we occasion here to consider at length whether, as urged by Winters and Crampton, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirming the interlocutory order of the District Court adjudging the infringement and ordering an accounting, finally and conclusively determined the question of infringement so as to become binding upon the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The bill in the Dent case was filed before the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had been rendered. This judgment was not set up by Winters and Crampton in the Dent case by any amendment to the pleadings; nor was it even introduced in evidence in that case. In short, there is nothing in the record in that case to raise the the defense of res judicata or estoppel by judgment; and the only effect of the decree in the Seventh Circuit when called to the attention of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in argument was, at most, that which it had under the doctrine of comity, constituting a rule, not of law, but of practice, convenience and expediency; and if we thought the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 'correct upon the merits, we should not reverse its action' though we were of opinion it had not given sufficient weight to that doctrine. See Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 488, 20 S. Ct. 708, 44 L. Ed. 856.
3. This brings us to the question brought up for review by the writs of certiorari, as to whether the five specific claims of the Winters and Crampton patent were infringed by the refrigerator latches manufactured by the Dent Hardware Co. and used by the Refrigerator Co.
So far as this question is concerned there is no substantial difference in the evidence in the two cases. As there was a concurrent finding in the two lower courts in the Sanitary case that they were infringed, and a concurrent finding in the two lower courts in the Dent case that they were not infringed, and the cases have been brought here because of the conflict of decision in the two Circuit Courts of Appeals, it is clear that under these circumstances, neither properly calls for the strict application of the general rule as to the acceptance by this Court of the concurrent findings of the lower courts on questions of fact, and we consider independently the question as to which of the decisions on this question is based upon the sounder reasoning and is correct. Compare Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 265 U. S. 445, 447, 44 S. Ct. 533, 68 L. Ed. 1098; Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U. S. 177, 180, 46 S. Ct. 42, 70 L. Ed. 222. Furthermore upon the undisputed evidence the question of infringement resolves itself in each case into one of law, depending upon a comparison between the structure disclosed on the face of the patent and the device shown in the Dent latch, and the correct application thereto of the rule of equivalency. Compare Singer Co. v. Cramer, 192 U. S. 265, 275, 24 S. Ct. 291, 48 L. Ed. 437.
4. In the application for their patent Winters and Crampton said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V.
...substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result.'") (quoting Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147 (1929)). The function, way, result inquiry focuses on "an examination of the claim and the explanation of it f......
-
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 120, 125, 24 L.Ed. 935, 936 (1878); Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147, 156 (1929). In Graver Tank Co., supra, 339 U.S., at 608, 70 S.Ct., at 857, 94 L.Ed., at 1102, the leading case on the ......
-
Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
... ... v. Goss Printing Press Co., 2 Cir., 1929, 30 F.2d 271, 274; American Soda Fountain Co. v ... 412, 414, 82 L. Ed. 625; see Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 1929, 280 U.S. 30, ... ...
-
Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co
...244, 28 L.Ed. 768; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 114, 42 S.Ct. 427, 430, 66 L.Ed. 848; see Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 32—33, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147; General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 305 U.S. 124, 127, 59 S.Ct. 116, 117, 83 L.Ed. If ......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 533 (1935). 200. 15 U.S.C. § 45(b); see FTC v. Klesner, 280 U.S. 19, 30 (1929). 201. See Klesner, 280 U.S. at 30. 202. See, e.g., Slough v. FTC, 396 F.2d 870, 872 (5th Cir. 1968). 203. Id. 204. Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F.2d 986, 997 (D.C. Ci......
-
Construing patent claims according to their 'interpretive community': a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...and for the purposes set forth"). (186.) ELLIS, supra note 137, § 6, at 7. (187.) See, e.g., Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 37-38 (1929) (construing claims ending with the phrases "substantially as and for the purposes described" or "substantially as described"); MERGES......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...centuries, the Supreme Court often relied upon this test to determine equivalents. See, eg., Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929); Morely Sewing Mach. Co., 129 U.S. at 283-84; Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125 (95.) See Croswell, supra note 91, at 210; see also......
-
Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo.
...the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result." Id. at 6074)8 (quoting Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 As might be imagined, there have been dissenters throughout--as exemplified by Judge Learned Hand, writing in 1929: It is plain that [the ......