Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co.
Decision Date | 14 August 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 1004.,1004. |
Citation | 28 F. Supp. 813 |
Parties | VAN WORMER v. CHAMPION PAPER & FIBRE CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Walter F. Murray, of Murray, Sackhoff & Paddack, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Marston Allen, of Allen & Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.
This is a suit in equity brought under the patent laws of the United States. The pleadings consist of plaintiff's amended bill of complaint filed March 17, 1937, and defendant's answer thereto filed April 30, 1937, as amended January 12, 1938.
The patent in suit is No. 1,947,748 granted February 20, 1934, to George Van Wormer, Hamilton, Ohio, plaintiff herein, for "Paper Cleaning Machine". Plaintiff alleges (and defendant denies) that he is the sole owner of the letters patent.
In his amended bill he charges defendant with infringement and prays for an injunction and an accounting. In its answer, defendant denies infringement and claims that the patent is invalid for the reasons set forth in its answer, as amended.
On February 23, 1939, defendant, through its counsel, Messrs. Allen & Allen, filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment in favor Defendant". That motion reads as follows. "Now comes the Defendant, by its attorneys, and presents to the Court the affidavit of Marston Allen together with the exhibits attached thereto, and respectfully submits to the Court that on the affidavit, the depositions and the pleadings, no infringement of Plaintiff's patent in suit exists as charged in the Bill of Complaint, and it therefore asks that a summary judgment be entered in the above cause in favor of the Defendant and in conformity with Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c."
At the same time the foregoing motion was filed the affidavit of Mr. Allen, therein referred to, was also filed.
The cause is now before the court on the foregoing motion, the pleadings, the affidavit of Mr. Allen and the documents referred to therein. On March 4, 1939, counsel for the respective parties presented their oral arguments to the court for and against the motion. These arguments were reported and thereafter transcribed.
The patent in suit contains 3 claims. In response to an inquiry by the court, counsel for defendant stated that all 3 claims are in issue "so far as this motion is concerned". However, as appears in the same record, counsel for defendant made the following statements with respect to the claims:
It is agreed that the question of validity is not before the court on the present motion. In their brief counsel for defendant say: "The record before the Court is not complete on the point of validity, the motion does not bring this point to the attention of the Court." That counsel for plaintiff agree with this view is shown by the following in the Record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EW Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co.
...or have not both moved for summary judgment. Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965; Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 813; Meikle v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. Furthermore, although this court cannot in the circumstances say......
-
JM Huber Corp. v. POSITIVE ACTION TOOL OF OHIO
...even though a question of validity is not presented, since infringement is a question of fact. Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co., 28 F.Supp. 813 (D.C. Ohio, 1939). V. Literal Infringement is a Question of Fact An accused device literally infringes if it embodies every element of the ......
-
Chiplets, Inc. v. June Dairy Products Co.
...The issue of infringement is an issue of fact which can ordinarily be determined only on a trial on the merits. Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 813; American Optical Co. v. New Jersey Optical Co., D.C., 58 F. Supp. 601, 605. The present record will not support a d......
-
Meikle v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co.
...& Co., D.C., 34 F.Supp. 559; Charles Blum Advertising Co. v. L. & C. Mayers Co., Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 934; Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co., D.C., 28 F. Supp. 813. Where, however, as in the present case, the facts relied upon by each party pertaining to the construction and operat......