Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters
Decision Date | 06 March 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 3935.,3935. |
Citation | 24 F.2d 15 |
Parties | SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO. v. WINTERS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
E. Hayward Fairbanks, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Frank E. Liverance, Jr., of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellees.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
A patent, No. 1,385,102, to Winters and Crampton, issued July 19, 1921, covering a latch, was the basis of the instant suit. Seven claims are involved, two of which (5 and 6) are broad, generic claims, while the other five (1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) are narrow, specific claims.
The District Court sustained all claims, and found appellant to be an infringer thereof. Thereafter appellees brought suit upon this same patent in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the court there held that claims 5 and 6 of the patent were invalid and the other five claims were not infringed by latches similar to the ones made by appellant.
Counsel, with commendable frankness, have made concessions in this court which greatly narrow the controverted issues. Appellant admits the validity of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, while appellees concede that claims 5 and 6 are invalid. The sole issue remaining, in view of these concessions, is one of infringement of the five valid claims. The concession that these five claims are valid was 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 inventor said:
Two typical claims are 1 and 7, herewith quoted:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baltz v. Botto
...56 U.S. 330, 341-344, 14 L.Ed. 717; Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 1929, 280 U.S. 30, 41, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147; affirming 7 Cir., 24 F.2d 15; Vrooman v. Penhollow, 6 Cir., 1910, 179 F. 296; Ridgedale Ellis "Patent Claims", Sec. 56, page 67. 13. In the instant case all of the elem......
-
Chicago Patent Corporation v. Genco, Inc.
...does substantially the same work in substantially the same way and accomplishes the same result." See, also, Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters et al., 7 Cir., 24 F.2d 15, affirmed 280 U.S. 30, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. Defendant insists that its "Ragtime" and "Recorder" devices do not infring......
- International Trading Co. v. John Sexton & Co.