Stiller v. Squeez-A-Purse Corporation

• Decision Date: 28 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 14411.,14411.
• Citation: 296 F.2d 504
• Parties: Benjamin STILLER et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. SQUEEZ-A-PURSE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

296 F.2d 504 (1961)

Benjamin STILLER et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. SQUEEZ-A-PURSE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 14411.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

November 28, 1961.

J. William Freeman, Akron, Ohio, for defendants-appellants, Albert R. Teare, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.

William R. Liberman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee, Sanford Schnurmacher, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief.

Before MARTIN and CECIL, Circuit Judges, and DARR, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

After a former hearing of this patent suit, our court, on May 2, 1960, affirmed per curiam the judgment of the United States District Court on the basis of that court's memorandum opinion, published in 175 F.Supp. 667, 669. Squeez-A-Purse Corporation v. Stiller et al., 280 F.2d 424 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 364 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 67, 5 L.Ed.2d 56. In the opinion and order of the District Court, which we affirmed, it was recited that "it was conceded that Claim 3 of the Reissue Patent No. 24,166 was the only claim to be looked to in determining whether plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement."

The patent in issue covered a coin purse comprised of a quick-opening and self-closing container, made of elastic properties similar to soft rubber, the envelope having relatively small depth and a substantially transverse normally closed slit in one face extending from one periphery to another and having, also, oppositely disposed through apertures, with the respective ends of the aforesaid slit being arched. The top of the arched-slit side had a curvature of less magnitude than the balance of the arched side, the slit face being substantially flat in the region of the slit.

The District Court stated that the patent is a product and not a method patent; and held that Claim 3 of the patent in suit constituted invention. The prior art was reviewed, with the adjudication that none of the earlier patents cited read on or disclosed the equivalents of "the elements and features" of the defendants' purse.

The Memorandum Opinion and Order stated distinctly:

"Consideration of the evidence presented does not, in my opinion, result in the success of the plaintiff's efforts to have declared invalid and non-infringed, the defendants' purse.

"I find the defendants' patent valid and infringed. Italics supplied.

"It follows that the defendants are not guilty of unfair competition and I so find and conclude. The defendants have every right to prevent infringement of their valid patent and are entitled to the relief sought in their counterclaim."

The memorandum concluded with an order directing that "the complaint be dismissed; that the defendants be awarded judgment of validity and ininfringement on their counterclaim; and that an injunction and accounting be had as prayed, all at plaintiff's costs."

Within a week after the opinion and order of the District Judge was promulgated, the plaintiff, Squeez-A-Purse Corporation, filed a petition for rehearing and reconsideration in which it presented substantially all the contentions which plaintiff-appellee asserts upon this present hearing. Specifically, the appellee corporation alleged in its petition for reconsideration that the District Court should have rendered a proper decision on all the issues. The defendants-appellants, Stiller and others, submitted a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's petition for rehearing and reconsideration, stating that the court had considered all issues presented by the complaint of the plaintiff; and that there actually had been specific findings upon every issue raised in the pleadings.

The United States District Judge sustained the defendants' position; and, as previously stated, our court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the basis of its memorandum opinion. We remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with our order. 280 F.2d 424, supra.

Upon remand, the District Court entered judgment on August 17, 1960, wherein quite material changes were made in its former judgment which had been affirmed by this appellate court, with subsequent...