United States v. Vehicular Parking
Decision Date | 28 March 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 259.,259. |
Citation | 54 F. Supp. 828 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. VEHICULAR PARKING, Limited, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Wendell Berge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ernest S. Meyers and Bartholomew A. Diggins, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., and E. Houston Harsha, Sp. Atty., of Washington, D. C., and Stewart Lynch, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Samuel E. Darby, Jr. (of Darby & Darby), of New York City, and William S. Potter (of Southerland Berl & Potter), of Wilmington, Del., for Vehicular group of defendants, and Carl C. Magee.
Lyman W. Sherwood and Clarence J. Loftus (of Loftus, Moore, Olson & Trexler), both of Chicago, Ill., and Edmund S. Hellings, of Wilmington, Del., for Duncan Meter Co. and Donald F. Duncan.
Edwin D. Steel, Jr. (of Morris, Steel & Nichols), of Wilmington, Del., for Dual Parking Meter Co. and George E. Tribble.
C. Edward Duffy (of Logan & Duffy), of Wilmington, Del., and John E. Shepard, of Covington, Ky., for Mi-Co Meter Co. and F. L. Michaels and Alfred R. Miller.
Ivan Culbertson, of Wilmington, Del., and Stanley D. Fisher, of Hartford, Conn., for M. H. Rhodes, Inc., and M. H. Rhodes.
Defendants are charged with violating Secs. 1, 2 and 3 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-3. This proceeding is brought under Sec. 4, 15 U.S.C.A. § 4, to prevent and restrain further violations.
The government's issue is whether on evidence adduced it has been proven that defendants1 entered into a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade with respect to (1) manufacture, distribution and sale of parking meters and (2) United States letters patent relating to such parking meters.
The government's case stands upon the illegality of the combination and the conspiracy as a whole and not on the illegality of individual combinations of which it is composed. In this type of case the court does not look at any particular act. It looks at the final harvest of all defendants' acts. United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525, 544, 33 S.Ct. 141, 57 L.Ed. 333, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 325; United States v. Reading Co., 226 U.S. 324, 357, 358, 33 S. Ct. 90, 57 L.Ed. 243; United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., C.C., 149 F. 823. Usually in cases of unlawful agreements to restrain trade, difficulties arise in presenting direct evidence. Hence, inferences from circumstantial evidence have been held sufficient to prove the alleged conspiracy. Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 221, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 L.Ed. 610; Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 612, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490, L.R. A.1915A, 788; United States v. Corn Products Refining Co., D.C., 234 F. 964. But, in the case at bar, by a set of unusual circumstances, the government became possessed of certain definitive writings which contain recorded admissions which point to defendants' participation in the alleged illegal combination.2
1. Gestatory Stage. Parkrite and Dual owned patents on parking meters.3 In 1936 they produced and sold these devices. On August 20, 1936 individual defendant Joynt wrote to individual defendants Taylor and Symington. He prognosticated: These individual defendants were neither inventors nor owned patents on parking meters. But Joynt made a search in the Patent Office. After this, he wrote Symington and Taylor: (Italics supplied.) They then formed Karpark, a Delaware corporation, which agreed with Parkrite on February 25, 1937 that each would assign "to a patent administrative corporation"—to be organized later—all their interests in inventions4 then owned or thereafter acquired relating to parking meters, Karpark to pay Parkrite $100,000, and the administrative corporation, in turn, to grant to Karpark and Parkrite5 a license to make and vend meters under the corporation's patents and under such terms of sale as determined by such company. This "patent administrative corporation" was formed on March 12, 1937. It was called Vehicular Parking, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, which, though empowered by the State of Delaware, has not since its inception manufactured or sold any product faintly resembling parking meters; and as far as the court can see, "has no facilities for research or development" of such devices. Bluntly, it is a patent holding company.
However, Parkrite wanted to reserve a license if it was to assign its patents to Vehicular. But Joynt immediately said it was For Parkrite to assign and reserve a license and not assign and then take back a license with conditions So concluded Joynt. Time passed. Then Vehicular acquired Parkrite's patents and granted licenses to both Parkrite and Karpark. Months later Parkrite was dissolved. Its assets were absorbed by Karpark.6
Now, in 1937 Dual, owning patents on meters, had been leading the industry in sales. Effort was made to have Dual join in and assign its patents to Vehicular with an attractive license back to Dual with a small royalty fee. But Dual refused7 to join the "patent administrative tribunal."
2. The Combination Commences. By 1940 Vehicular had acquired other patents. The year before Rhodes was selling meters at prices lower than its competitors. Vehicular's negotiations with Rhodes for a price-maintenance agreement were unsuccessful. Thereupon Vehicular advised the cities of New Haven, Connecticut, and Raleigh, North Carolina, which were considering the installation of Rhodes' meters, that such use would constitute an infringement of Vehicular's patents. Vehicular then sued Rhodes in the District of Connecticut charging that the meters used by Rhodes infringed patents held by Vehicular. The purpose of "the suit was to show prospective licensees that it was Vehicular's intention to push the matter through litigation with the hope and expectation that those prospective licensees who were `on the fence' on joining a price stabilization set-up would be swayed into falling in line, even including Rhodes himself." Rhodes then re-opened negotiations, but it objected to a plan of price maintenance until the other competitors8 were brought into the combination. On January 20, 1940 Rhodes took a license from Vehicular but the price maintenance provisions were to be suspended until Dual and Duncan joined the combination.
Dual was next in line. It had important patents and was, as stated, a leader in sales. Duncan, Mico and Rhodes all thought Dual's participation in the price stabilization plan essential. Stock in Dual was purchased, but Dual still preferred to stand outside. Vehicular finally charged Dual with manufacturing meters which infringed two of Vehicular's patents, and brought suit in this court. Dual's answer avers that Vehicular had conspired with other manufacturers to create an unlawful monopoly in the parking meter industry, it sought to control prices and levy tribute from Dual. Dual countered by bringing an action for infringement in this court against Karpark. While these two suits were pending in 1940, individual defendant Tribble acquired the control stock of Dual, retained Magee as President, and directed the taking of a license from and the execution of the price maintenance agreement with Vehicular, after Dual for $55,000 had first assigned seven of its patents and an exclusive license under three other patents to Vehicular.
Then Duncan joined up. It had agreed to come in when Dual signed as Dual was Duncan's "only mean competition". It was part of the planned technique that Dual and Duncan had to be brought into the fold. Counsel had already advised Duncan that Vehicular's Doyle patent was of doubtful validity and that Vehicular was trying to use its patents "as a means to scare the parking meter manufacturers into taking a license rather than be sued." Nevertheless, Duncan executed the necessary papers. With Duncan and Dual both in, this lifted the bar to the operation of the price maintenance agreement with Rhodes.
In 1939, Mico had agreed to the plan but its obligation was not to become effective "until such time as at least five of the seven meter manufacturers mentioned * * * have signed an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Line Materials Co
...of a patent on an attachment to a basket making machine may not fix prices on baskets produced by the machine. United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., D.C., 54 F.Supp. 828. Antitrust proceeding against patent holding company and manufacturing licensees in parking meter industry. The paten......
-
United States v. LD Caulk Company
...v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 90 L. Ed. 1575, and many other cases, particularly United States v. Vehicular Parking, Limited (in this Court), D.C., 54 F.Supp. 828. 3 Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers Ass'n v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490;......
-
Regal Knitwear Co v. National Labor Relations Board
...6 Cir., 133 F.2d 295, 302. 4 See decrees in United States v. Pullman Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1944, 53 F.Supp. 908; United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., D.C.Del.1944, 54 F.Supp. 828; Id., 56 F.Supp. 297; Aluminum Colors Inc. v. Empire Plating Co., D.C., 5 F.Supp. 687; United States v. Great Lak......
-
DUNCAN METER CORPORATION v. MH Rhodes, Inc.
... ... corporation, exclusive licensee under the patent, which deals with parking meters, in the parking meter field,1 and Samuel Lee Miller, resident of ... For a phase of the parking meter industry see United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., et al., D.C., 52 F.Supp. 749, 751; ... ...
-
Table of cases
...76 (1950), 349 United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942), 79, 85, 383, 391, 451 United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., 54 F. Supp. 828 (D. Del. 1944), 148, 156 United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., 61 F. Supp. 656 (D. Del. 1945), 352 United States v. Visa U.S.A., 344 F.3d......
-
Antitrust Analysis Of Intellectual Property Agreements
...416 (10th Cir. 1952); Baker-Cammack Hosiery Mills v. Davis Co., 181 F.2d 550 (4th Cir. 1950); United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd., 54 F. Supp. 828 (D. Del. 1944); 3C DVD Business Review Letter, 505; 6C DVD Business Review Letter, supra note 503; Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Ass’t Att......
-
A brief history of frand: analyzing current debates in standard setting and antitrust through a historical lens
...324 U.S. 570 (1945), remanded to 1946 WL 69269 (N.D. Ohio 1946), modified , 1947 WL 61845 (N.D. Ohio 1947) 6 U.S. v. Vehicular Parking, 54 F. Supp. 828 (D. Del. contested 1944), modified , 61 F. Supp. 656 (D. Del. 1945) 7 U.S. v. GE, 1945 WL 72541 (D.N.J. 1945) consent 8 U.S. v. Bendix Avia......
-
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
...Mich. 1951), aff’d , 343 U.S. 444 (1952); United States v. GE, 82 F. Supp. 753, 816 (D.N.J. 1949); United States v. Vehicular Parking, 54 F. Supp. 828, 839-40 (D. Del.), modified , 56 F. Supp. 297 (D. Del. 1944), modified , 61 F. Supp. 656 (D. Del. 1945); Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, 42 ......