Thyssen Plastik Anger KG v. Induplas, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1394,77-1394 |
| Parties | THYSSEN PLASTIK ANGER KG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDUPLAS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Daniel H. Kane, New York City, with whom Charles P. Bauer, New York City, Gerald Levy, Parsippany, N. Y., and Kane, Dalsimer, Kane, Sullivan & Kurucz, New York City, were on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
David S. Abrams, Washington, D. C., with whom Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Kaul, Washington, D. C., Cesar A. Hernandez-Colon, Ponce, P. R., Donald A. Kaul and Alfred N. Goodman, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, BOWNES and MOORE, * Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee invalidating a patent held by plaintiff-appellant on the grounds that the "best mode" requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was violated.
The critical sentence for a court reviewing a grant of summary judgment is Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c):
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The basic issue in all appeals from the granting of summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact.
In order to determine whether the district court was correct in its ruling, a brief description of the patent involved is necessary. The patent teaches a method for continuously forming extruded pipes or tubes having a uniform outside diameter but with specific lengths of the pipe at predetermined spaced intervals having predetermined increased wall thicknesses. The patent discloses that the pipe is severed and expanded to form sockets at the areas of increased wall thickness so as to provide pressure joints at least as strong as the main pipe. This permits the pipe to be used in high pressure applications without fear of rupturing at the joints. The patent claims that it results in an economy of material as well as a stronger joint than was available prior to the invention.
The crucial part of the invention is the periodic slowing down of the speed at which the length of pipe travels from the extruder to the water bath which is the end of the process. When the pipe is slowed down, the plastic coming out of the extruder builds up on that portion of the pipe then at the extruder; this causes the desired extra thickness. When the pipe resumes its normal speed as it travels through the process, it is formed at regular thickness. The pipe is pulled away from the extruder by two rollers which operate off a set of gears. The inventors obtained the requisite change in the speed of the pipe by adding a "second gear" to the power drive. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was based on the allegation that the use of a "second gear" was the best mode of carrying out the invention and that the patent failed to disclose it. 35 U.S.C. § 112. 1
In granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the district court found:
The second gear arrangement was the best mode contemplated by the inventors for carrying out their invention and is not disclosed in the patent.
There is no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the second gear arrangement being the best mode contemplated by the inventors and concerning the failure to disclose the precise second gear arrangement in the patent.
In Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 464 (1st Cir. 1975) we set out the high standards to be applied to a motion for summary judgment.
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate the court must "look at the record . . . in the light most favorable to . . . the party opposing the motion . . . ." Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962). Similarly the court must indulge all inferences favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Rogen v. Ilikon, 361 F.2d 260, 266 (1st Cir. 1966). These rules must be applied with recognition of the fact that it is the function of summary judgment, in the time hallowed phrase, "to pierce formal allegations of facts in the pleadings . . ..", Schreffler v. Bowles, 153 F.2d 1, 3 (10th Cir. 1946), and to determine whether further exploration of the facts is necessary. Briggs v. Kerrigan, 431 F.2d 967, 968 (1st Cir. 1970).
The language of Rule 56(c) sets forth a bifurcated standard which the party opposing summary judgment must meet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bangor Baptist Church v. STATE OF ME., ETC.
...motion may not be used as a vehicle for turning an adversary proceeding into a trial by affidavit, see Thyssen Plastik Anger KG v. Induplas, Inc., 576 F.2d 400, 402 (1st Cir.1978); Redman v. Warrener, 516 F.2d 766, 768 (1st Cir.1975), and that the parties are entitled to try the material fa......
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. Cannon
...the only genuine issue is the constitutionality of S. 924. Thus, the case is ripe for summary disposition. Thyssen Plastik Anger KG v. Induplas, Inc., 576 F.2d 400, 402 (1st Cir.1978); and when both parties cross-move on the same legal theory, a court's granting of one party's motion must p......
-
Kizas v. Webster
...See Perma Research and Development Co. v. Singer, 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir. 1969); but see Thyssen Plastik Anger KG. Induplas, Inc., 576 F.2d 400 (1st Cir. 1978). To do otherwise "would greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of fact." ......
-
Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc.
...See also Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 486 (1st Cir.1981); Thyssen Plastik Anger KG v. Induplas, Inc., 576 F.2d 400, 401 (1st Cir.1978). Merrimack, as the party moving for summary judgment, has the burden of affirmatively showing that there is no ge......