218 F. Supp. 498 | S.D.N.Y. | 1963
This is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), alleging infringement of two patents covering carpet-seaming tapes. The first of these patents was issued to Walter J. Reinhard, a plaintiff in this action. The other plaintiff, United States Rubber Company (“U.S. Rubber”), acquired the rights to the second patent by assignment from the alleged inventor, Paul D. Wright. Defendant is Consolidated Trimming Corporation (“Consolidated”), a New York corporation, having its principal place of business in Manhattan. The litigation has spawned a number of legal and factual issues.
I
Carpet-seaming tape is a device for joining together pieces of carpet eliminating the need of sewing the pieces together. Defendant Consolidated’s allegedly infringing tape
There are two ways of using carpet-seaming tape — face-seaming and back-seaming.
Joining carpet sections together by adhesively securing a strip of fabric or other material to the backs of two abutting pieces of carpet was a common practice by 1934,
in 1946, plaintiff Reinhard became assoeiated with the Naugatuck Chemical Division of plaintiff U. S. Rubber as a commission salesman of latex adhesive used to strengthen carpet seams when carpets are sewn together. In selling this product, Reinhard called on retail carpet dealers, independent carpet workrooms (which install carpets for dealers who do not have their own workrooms), and rug cleaners.
In late 1948 or early 1949, Reinhard conceived the idea of patenting a carpet-seaming tape of his own. Accordingly, Reinhard filed an application with the United States Patent Office on May 7, 1949, which patent was later issued on May 8, 1951, as No. 2,552,114 (“the first Reinhard patent”)
After applying for this patent, Rein-hard attempted to improve his product by substituting a crepe paper backing for the plain paper backing envisaged in his application. On December 8, 1949, Reinhard demonstrated this changed form of his carpet-seaming tape at a convention of carpet distributors in New York City. At least one distributor there gave him an order for the tape, although there was no price for the product because there was no machine to make it.
On December 13, 1950, Reinhard applied for his second carpet-seaming tape patent. This patent was ultimately issued to him as No. 2,647,850 on August 4, 1953 (“the second Reinhard patent”).
After filing his application for each of his patents, Reinhard licensed them to U. S. Rubber,
The second patent forming the basis of plaintiffs’ suit was allegedly invented by Paul D. Wright. In 1953, Wright was in the purchasing department of the Naugatuck Chemical Division of U. S. Rubber, and, at Reinhard’s request, he engaged in cost reduction studies on Rug Sealz tape.
Milnes’ Bindex tapes were constructed by knitting continuous weft (widthwise) yarns on to a backing of another material in a series of longitudinal stitches. This is the same principle of construction used by Milnes in making samples for Wright and later used in the altered Rug Sealz tape.
In 1954, shortly before the filing of Wright’s patent application, Milnes was called to Naugatuck in connection with that application. At that time, the U.S. Rubber attorney who handled Wright’s application asked Milnes to describe the method of manufacturing the tape, apparently in order to assist him in preparing the application.
On April 15, 1954, Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. (“Carson”) ordered “3 cartons Rug Sealz Tape.”
Wright, through U. S. Rubber’s attorney, mailed his patent application on
Defendant’s Klosette tape — the allegedly infringing tape — originated in a December 1954 meeting of defendant’s personnel, held several months after U. S. Rubber began selling the changed Rug Sealz tape but before Wright applied for his patent. One of defendant’s officers brought a sample of tape copied from a competitor to the meeting, and the men present decided that defendant should manufacture such a tape.
Plaintiffs’ tapes were marked, with regard to patent numbers, by a label stapled on to the outer end of each roll of tape.
Sales of the changed Rug Sealz tape have grown from approximately 69,000 yards in 1955, to approximately 560,000 yards in 1962, at a price of ten cents per yard. Sales of defendant’s Klosette tape have also increased, reaching a total of approximately 412,000 yards in 1961.
II
Defendant has advanced a number of grounds allegedly barring relief to plaintiffs here. Its basic argument is that claims one and three of the second Rein-hard patent and all claims of the 'Wright patent are invalid because they are not inventive within the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103. Some of defendant’s other contentions are that Wright was not the inventor of the Wright patent, that the description of the process by which the subject matter of that patent is made is insufficient, that plaintiffs have unclean hands for a number of reasons,
Turning to defendant’s principal contention — lack of invention — Sections 101 and 103 of 35 U.S.C. provide:
“§ 101. Inventions patentable “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Ҥ 103. Conditions for patent-ability; non-obvious subject matter
“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”
There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the patents, and the burden of establishing invalidity is on defendant. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed. 983 (1937). The proper weight to be given the presumption was stated by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Lorenz v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 305 F.2d 102, 105 (2 Cir. 1962):
“Appellant places great weight on the presumption of validity attached by statute to a duly issued patent (35 U.S.C. § 282 (1958)). The presumption of validity relieves the patent holder of the burden of establishing that validity as a requisite for the successful maintenance of an infringement action, and places the burden of establishing invalidity on the alleged infringer who asserts it. International Carrier-Call & Television Corp. v. Radio Corp. of America, 142 F.2d 493, 495 (2d Cir., 1944); Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 147 F.2d 345, 348 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 325 U.S. 873, 65 S.Ct. 1414, 89 L.Ed. 1991 (1945). More than that, the most that can be said of the presumption is that it requires that reasonable doubt on the question of validity be resolved in favor of the patent holder. See Mumm v. Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 171, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed. 983 (1937). The statute does not require that the presumption be accorded the weight of actual evidence or that the use of the presumption should affect a decision of invalidity that would otherwise be reached with confidence. This court has recognized the unavoidable obstacles to an accurate and impartial decision that are inherent in ex parte proceedings in the patent office, Guide v. Desperak, 249 F.2d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 1957). We cannot properly allow decisions of that office to alter the preponderance of the evidence on the question of validity. See Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 156, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950); In re Thomson, 26 App.D.C. 419, 425 (1906); cf. Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48 (S.D.N.Y.1924) (L. Hand, J.), rev’d, 10 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1926).”55
In order to accurately comprehend the disputed claims of the second Reinhard patent, it is necessary to examine with some care the claims of the first Reinhard patent, even though the validity of that
“3. As a new article of manufacture a fabric taping for uniting together sections of carpeting along a common seam portion comprising a narrow strip of fabric material, a plurality of relatively narrow metal strips disposed along the length of the tape transversely thereof, means securing said strips to the back of the tape, grippers protruding from the other side of the tape for engaging the adjoining sections of carpeting and a paper backing of somewhat greater width than the strip of fabric material.
“9. A carpet joining device comprising a fabric tape for uniting together sections of carpeting along a common seam portion and metallic gripper elements protruding from the surface of the tape for engaging the adjoining sections of carpeting and holding the edges thereof in closely abutting relationship, said fabric material being relatively inextensible in a direction transverse of the carpet seam but relatively extensible longitudinally of the seam whereby the carpet section's may be stretched without breaking the seam.”57
The advantages of the device upon which Reinhard based his claims of patentability in the first Reinhard patent were: (1) the use of metal grippers in the carpet-seaming tape to eliminate the need for tacks to hold the carpet in place after adhesive was applied to the tape; and (2) stretchabi-lity in a lengthwise direction for the carpet-seaming fabric compared to a lack of stretchability thereof in the transverse direction.
Reinhard applied for his second patent covering carpet-seaming tape after his application for the first patent was filed but before the first patent was issued. The only feature of the second Reinhard patent which is new, vis a vis the first Reinhard patent, is what plaintiffs refer to as “coextensibility,” i. e., the idea of having the paper underlay, as well as the fabric tape, longitudinally stretchable so that the paper will stretch along with the fabric portion instead of resisting such stretch.
' “3. A tape for adhesively joining together adjacent carpet sections at the abutting edges, comprising an elongated narrow fabric extensible lengthwise to permit stretching of the carpet along the seam, but substantially inextensible widthwise to hold the edges in abutting relationship after they are secured together by the tape, and a backing of crinkled paper secured to the opposite side of the tape to localize adhesive applied to the surface thereof, the wrinkles running transversely of the tape so as to be extensible in a direction lengthwise of the tape with the fabric portion.”60
Plaintiffs argue that this idea of coextensibility is manifested in the use of crepe paper as an underlay rather than
“[T]he usual paper backing creates a condition of stress so that when the carpet is rolled lengthwise of the seam, wrinkles and irregularities occur which persist after the carpet is again unrolled.
“In accordance with my present invention, I have found that these objections may be fulfilled and wrinkling eliminated by providing a fabric carpet-joining tape, extensible lengthwise and relatively inextensible crosswise of the tape with a backing of crepe or crinkled paper which will provide the desired degree of protection to the floor surface and at the same time will extend with the fabric portion of the tape longitudinally of the seam during stretching operations, but will be relatively inextensible transversely of the seam.”62
At trial, plaintiffs also made the contention that the use of crepe paper provided the advantage of noiselessness in addition to elimination of resistance to stretch.
I find that this “coextensibility” or crepe paper feature is not “useful,” and, therefore, that the patent does not meet the minimum standard of patent-ability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ara T. Dildilian, a man of vast experience in the field, testified that use of crepe paper instead of flat paper does not eliminate tension by increased stretchability, because flat paper breaks easily in stretching, and, therefore, does not “create any resistance at all.”
Harry G. DeVoe, plaintiffs’ witness, seamed carpets himself at the trial, and he testified as to the appearance of the resulting seams. He stated that the distortions which he found in carpets seamed with flat paper were barely discernible
It is true that there was testimony from plaintiffs’ witnesses that crepe paper makes the entire tape more easily stretchable and that this increased stretchability overcomes a defect in the prior art, namely that wrinkles and distortions appear in the face of carpets
As to noiselessness, it is true that Reinhard testified that flat paper tape seams are noisy when walked on while crepe paper seams are not,
Under this view of the second Rein-hard patent, it is not necessary to consider in detail whether the patent meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103. An analysis of the standards to be applied in construing that section is contained below, at pages 507, 508 where the validity of the Wright patent is discussed. Were it necessary to the decision here, I would find that the second Reinhard patent is also invalid under Section 103, because the use of crepe paper to achieve stretchability was “obvious” to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Turning now to the Wright patent, the new ideas were the use in a carpet-seaming tape of untwisted weft yarns and the mechanical stitching together, rather than adhering together, of a paper underlay and fabric. All of the six claims in the Wright patent claim one or both of these ideas. The alleged principal advantage of these new features were greater adhesive absorptive capacity, faster adhesive drying, with the consequent elimination of the need for one of the two rows of tacks usually necessary in face-seaming, and a reduction in the cost of manufacturing. It appears that superior adhesive absorption and drying and the advantages flowing from that do exist, and I so find. With regard to the reduction in cost, the advantage claimed in the patent is elimination of the need to pre-treat the fabric portion of the tape with adhesives.
In Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corp., 279 F.2d 60, 62 (3 Cir., 1960), the Court said of Section 103 that the statutory standard is whether “Given the particular problem and the need for its solution, a skilled mechanic could draw upon his knowledge of the art to create the [device] here involved, or one substantially like it, without the exercise of inventive faculty.”
“This scrutiny amounts to nothing more than a common-sense appraisal : where a particular aggregation of recognized elements produces something novel, it is patentable; where it merely embellishes one of the ingredient elements, it is not. We agree that the standard is always subjective, the creature of an imagination projected upon the future out of materials of the past. The law is full of such standards, without which we should again and again be throttled by an infinity of prescriptions. The best we can do is to set forth in detail the reasons which appear, not only to justify, but to demand, our conclusion.”
Here, the prior art (most notably Rein-hard's first and second patents) disclosed a carpet tape composed of a strip of woven fabric glued on a piece of crepe paper backing. Wright changed the fabric portion of the tape from a prewoven tape to two lines of continuous, untwisted fabric which were woven back and forth along the width of the crepe paper backing and which were stitched onto that paper by rows of threads running longitudinally on the paper. Both of the allegedly inventive features —the untwisted yarn and the stitching of weft yarns onto a backing — were disclosed by the prior art.
Milnes testified that untwisted yarns were known and in use in 1953; he said that untwisted yam was a market item which anyone could buy, although very little of it was used.
The stitching of the fabric onto a backing was also prior art. Stitching weft threads onto a pre-existing fabric by the precise methed contemplated in the Wright patent was known at least in 1950 when Milnes applied for a patent on this idea.
Assuming that a mechanic skilled in fabrics and tape had addressed himself to the problems which Wright supposedly solved, e. g., greater and faster adhesive absorption and cost reduction, I believe that it would have been obvious to substitute crepe paper and fabric for the materials used by Milnes and to untwist the yam and stitch it directly onto the paper by the Bindex or other method. The Wright patent is merely a combination of the old Rug Sealz tape, the Bindex construction,
Ill
Under this view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider defendant’s other contentions. Some of defendant’s other arguments are weighty indeed, particularly its claims that Wright was not the inventor of the Wright patent, that because of the arrangement between Wright and Milnes the Wright patent should not be enforced,
The foregoing constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C. A decree, in accordance with these findings and conclusions holding claims one and three of the Reinhard patent and all the claims of the Wright patent invalid, shall be settled on-notice
. The record of the trial consumed over 3,000 pages of transcript.
. E. g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 91A [Plaintiffs’ Exhibit hereinafter cited as “PI. Ex.”].
. See Transcript, pp. 972-76 [Transcript hereinafter cited as “Tr.”]; Defendant’s Exhibit 11, pp. 9-10 [Defendant’s Ex-Mbit hereinafter cited as “Def. Ex.”].
. See Tr. pp. 79-80, 369; Def. Ex. 11, pp. 4-7.
. Tr. pp. 970-71. Plaintiff Reinhard acknowledged his familiarity with this prior carpet-seaming practice. See Tr. pp. 2169-73.
. U. S. Patent No. 1,842,746 (“the Chance patent”), issued on January 26, 1932, ta R- B- Chance; Def. Ex. 13.
. Def. Ex. 4; Tr. pp. 973-76.
. Tr. pp. 68-74.
. Tr. pp. 557-59, 2170-72.
. Pl. Ex. 5.
. See text accompanying notes 56-58 infra.
. Tr. pp. 108-11.
. Tr. pp. 136-38; cf. PI. Ex. 14.
. Tr. pp. 157-60.
. Tr. p. 161.
. Pl. Ex. 18.
. Pl. Exs. 15, 23; Tr. pp. 140, 162-63.
. Tr. p. 149.
. Tr. pp. 169-71.
. Tr. pp. 181-82.
. See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [hereinafter cited as “PL Prop. Find.”], Nos. 114-15, agreed to by defendant. Tr. pp. 1819-20.
. Pl. Prop. Find. No. 114, agreed to by defendant; Tr. pp. 1825, 1834-35.
. Tr. pp. 1827-29.
. Tr. pp. 1946-47.
. Def. Ex. 31, pp. 101, 103, 105, Nos. 268, 269, 270, 275, 276; Tr. p. 1956.
. Tr. p. 191; see PI. Exs. 28, 29.
. Tr. pp. 1814-15.
. Tr. pp. 1854-55, 2787-88.
. Tr. p. 1855.
. Tr. p. 1856.
. Tr. p. 2890.
. See Milnes’ direct testimony at Tr. pp. 1848-53 and Pl. Ex. 114. The parties stipulated that with the pre-Wright Rug Sealz tape, U. S. Rubber was constantly shopping around for cheaper sources of supply and, in fact, bought from more than one supplier, Tr. p. 2076, whereas with the changed tape it has only purchased from Milnes’ company and has never sought other bids on the tape. Tr. pp. 2077-78.
. Pl. Ex. 47 (Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. Copy of Order).
. See Pl. Ex. 63; Tr. pp. 252-53.
. Tr. pp. 242-43.
. Pl. Ex. 55.
. Pl. Ex. 50; Tr. pp. 892-93.
. Tr. pp. 2830-31.
. PI. Ex. 74.
. Tr. pp. 1275-77, 1205-06.
. Tr. p. 1208.
. PI. Ex. 98, columns 1, 2.
. Tr. pp. 264-65.
. Tr. pp. 265-67, 1207-08.
. Tr. pp. 1482-84, 1501.
. PI. Ex. 98, columns 2, 3.
. Tr. pp. 714, 1286; Pl.Prop.Find., No. 237, agreed to by defendant.
. Tr. pp. 714, 1286.
. Tr. pp. 735-36, 744-45, 2342-43.
. Tr. p. 515.
. Tr. pp. 220-21.
. Tr. p. 281.
. Pl. Ex. 112; Tr. pp. 1242-43, 1261-64.
. Pl.Prop.Find., No. 371, not factually disputed by defendant.
. See Gross v. JFD Mfg. Co., 314 F.2d 196, 198 (2 Cir. 1963).
. Plaintiffs have made clear that the claims of infringement here do not rest on this patent, and defendant does not attack this patent. Tr. pp. 2847, 2918-14.
. Pl. Ex. 5.
. Neither Reinhard’s first nor second patent claims as an advantage the idea that the article to be manufactured would consist of a fabric portion and a paper portion already joined together when it came to the user of the tape, rather than, as was common in the industry before, a fabric portion and a paper strip used separately but not pro-joined together. Tr. pp. 2855-58.
. Tr. pp. 2849, 2889. Defendant claims that coextensibility is necessarily claimed by the first Reinhard patent and on that ground, therefore, the second Reinhard patent is not inventive. Tr. pp. 2876-78.
. PI. Bx. 18. Plaintiffs contend that claims one and three of the second Rein-hard patent have been infringed, but concede that claims one and three state the same thing in different words. Tr. pp. 2994-05.
. Tr. pp. 2855, 2681; see PI. Ex. 109. At one point, plaintiffs indicated that a longitudinally stretchable fabric, in addition to a longitudinally stretchable paper, is also claimed in the second Reinhard patent, Tr. p. 2980, but on the whole they admit that such a fabric was claimed in the first Reinhard patent. E. g., Tr. p. 2854.
. PI. Ex. 18, column 1, lines 42-55, column 2, lines 1-3.
. Tr. pp. 550-51, 1628-33.
. Tr. pp. 977-78.
. Tr. pp. 1004^-06.
. Tr. pp. 1577-79.
. Tr. p. 2524.
. Tr. p. 2514.
. Tr. pp. 2509-10, 2515.
. Tr. p. 2525.
. Tr. p. 2528.
. Tr. pp. 2528-29.
. E. g., Tr. pp. 102-06, 898, 402, 414-16, 623-25.
. See Titcomb v. Morton Co., 307 F.2d 253, 256 (2 Cir. 1962).
. Plaintiffs agree that the utility and patentability of the second Reinhard patent is to be determined by comparing it with flat paper together with one of the fabric tapes available prior to the application for that patent. Plaintiffs’ Main Brief, p. 16.
. Tr. pp. 550-51.
. Tr. p. 2674.
. Tr. p. 1599.
. Cf. Tinnerman Prods., Inc. v. George K. Garrett Co., 292 F.2d 137, 140 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 58, 7 L.Ed.2d 35 (1961), holding that a feature or advantage not mentioned by the patentee before the Patent Office cannot be the sole basis for patentability in a subsequent litigation.
. See Deering, Milliken & Co. v. Temp-Resisto Corp., 274 F.2d 626, 633-34 (2 Cir. 1960) and cases cited therein.
. Cf. Reinhard’s own testimony admitting that crepe paper was in use before 1949, and that it was obvious that crepe paper is stretchable. Tr. pp. 463-64, 1733.
. PI. Ex. 75, column 1, lines 57-58.
. See Tr. p. 2929, where plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that “the only evidence on cost advantage” is a statement made by defendant’s counsel that defendant’s tape sells for less than any tape in which the fabric portion has to be attached to the paper portion in different operations. Tr. pp. 1317-18; see Tr. pp. 2868-69.
. See Tr. p. 2920.
. This language was quoted with approval in Gross v. JFD Mfg. Co., 314 F.2d 196, 200 (2 Cir. 1963).
. Tr. pp. 1864, 1938.
. Tr. pp. 1086-88.
. U. S. Patent No. 2,610,936, issued on September 16, 1952 to A. E. Carlson; Def. Ex. 78.
. Def. Ex. 78, column 3, lines 30-08.
. PI. Ex. 75, column 1, lines 33-40:
“Yarns of low extensibility and high strength are obtained by employing untwisted yarns made of very long or substantially continuous filaments. Heretofore, such yarns containing relatively fine filaments have been used as transverse members in seaming tapes, but in order to secure each of the filaments of the yarn to the paper strip base, the yarns were saturated with an adhesive and then adhered to the paper strip.”
. See Def. Ex. 80.
. Tr. pp. 2030-31.
. PI. Ex. 31, p. 45.
. Tr. pp. 1808-11.
. Compare the similarity of Milnes’ Bindex Tape No. 234A, Def. Ex. 31, p. 55, with U. S. Rubber’s Weld-O-Seam tape, Def. Ex. 32, which plaintiffs contend is covered by the Wright patent. Tr. p. 2952.
. Tr. pp. 2017-18, 2023.
. See generally Note, The Standard of Patentability — Judicial Interpretation of Section 103 of the Patent Act, 63 Col. L.Rev. 306 (1963); cf. Rifkind, The Romance Discoverable im. Patent Oases, 16 F.R.D. 253, 259 (1954).
. 224 F.2d 530 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 911, 76 S.Ct. 193, 100 L.Ed. 799 (1955).
. 285 F.2d 501 (2 Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed.2d 388 (1961).
. See Defendant’s Post-trial Brief, pp. 42-43, 65.
. Cf. Zoomar, Inc. v. Paillard Prods., Inc., 152 F.Supp. 328, 336 n. 11 (S.D. N.Y.1957), affd, 258 F.2d 527 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 908, 79 S.Ct. 237, 3 L.Ed.2d 230 (1958).
. New York C.P.A. § 347; Tr. pp. 1760-61.
. Tr. p. 1817.
. Gabbe v. Kleban Drug Corp., 6 Misc. 2d 457, 161 N.Y.S.2d 245, 248 (4Sup.Ct. 1957).
. Reynolds v. Snow, 10 A.D.2d 101, 197 N.Y.S.2d 590, 598 (1st Dep’t), aff'd per curiam, 8 N.Y.2d 901, 204 N.Y.S.2d 146 (Ct.App.1960).
. See text accompanying notes 31-32 supra.