American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.

283 U.S. 1, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 121
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 2, 1931
Docket48
StatusPublished
Cited by100 cases

This text of 283 U.S. 1 (American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 121 (1931).

Opinion

*5 Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Brogdex Company, present owner of United States Letters Patent No. 1,529,461, relating to “ certain new and useful improvements in the art of preparing fresh fruit for market,” applied for August 13, 1923, and issued to Brogden and Trowbridge March 10, 1925, presented its bill of complaint to the District Court for Delaware April 15, 1926, wherein it charged that the defendant (peti *6 tioner here), the American Fruit Growers, Inc., had infringed, and asked an injunction, accounting, damages, etc. It relied upon Claims Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which describe the process of treatment, also Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26, which concern the product.

Both courts below held all of these claims valid and infringed; and directed that petitioner be enjoined from using any process therein specified, also from manufacturing, selling, or using "treated fruit embodying and containing the invention described in said letters patent and secured by any of said [product] claims.”

Of the process claims, the following is characteristic—

“ 3. In the preparation of fresh fruit for market, the process which comprises subjecting fruit to the action of an aqueous solution of borax, the fluidity, strength and temperature of the treating solution, and the duration of the treatment, being such that exposed rind or skin tissues of the fruit are effectively impregnated with borax and rendered resistant to blue mold decay, while at the same time the fruit is not scalded nor is its freshness or edibility otherwise substantially impaired.”

The following is typical of the product claims—

" 26. Fresh citrus fruit of which the rind or skin carries borax in amount that is very small but sufficient to render the fruit resistant to blue mold decay."

“ The claim of a patent must always be explained by and read in connection with the specification.” Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 432.

The specification in respect of the patent states—

“ This invention relates to art of preparing fresh fruit for market; and in particular it relates to processes for the treatment of citrus and other fruits in such manner that the development of molds and the like upon the fruit, and especially the development of blue mold and infection by blue mold spores,- is prevented or arrested either wholly or to such large extent as greatly to pro *7 long the marketable life of the fruit beyond what has been possible heretofore; the complete treatment most desirably also including a step of providing the fruit with a very thin film-like coating of protective material comprising a waxy substance such as paraffin; all as will more fully hereinafter appear.

The greatest present utility of the invention is in the treatment of citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, lemons, tangerines, etc.; also apples and other fruits that are attacked by blue mold or the like. The invention is broad, however, and the term fruit as herein employed is to be understood as not necessarily restricted to fruit in the sense in which the word is usually employed, but is to be understood broadly as including not only fruit proper but also vegetables, such as tomatoes or the like, that can be treated to advantage in accordance with the principles of the invention to be hereinafter set forth.

“ For the sake of a concrete example whereby the principles of the invention may be illustrated and explained, reference will be made hereinafter more particularly to the treatment of citrus fruit, especially oranges and lemons, which are especially subject to attack and destruction by blue mold. It is a well-known fact that a large part of the losses from decay in the marketing of various fruits, such as citrus fruits and apples, is attributable directly to the action of blue mold. The problem of how to suppress or control blue mold development on fruits has been the subject of extensive and careful investigation, but admittedly no thoroughly satisfactory solution of the problem has heretofore been offered. In spite of elaborate precautions taken in the handling and transportation of fruits to market, it is not uncommon for shipments of oranges and the like to arrive at marketing points showing in some cases as much as 30 to 40 per cent decay directly attributable to blue mold. The various investigations of the subject have shown that while blue mold *8 does not ordinarily attack perfectly sound fruit that is free from bruises, cuts, thorn-pricks or punctures, the slightest surface cut or scratch affords a point of attack by providing lodgment for blue mold spores which develop with great rapidity and soon bring about complete destruction of the infected fruit. ...

“ The present applicants have discovered that by proper treatment of the fruit in the packing house it is possible to greatly reduce, and often to absolutely prevent, the growth or development of blue mold on fruit for long periods of time, and thus to materially lessen or even eliminate the heretofore unavoidable losses from decay. Moreover, it is possible to achieve these results without upsetting or greatly changing present practice so far as concerns the mechanical handling of fruit in packing houses of the modem type. Thorough practical tests of the novel processes have demonstrated conclusively that, by proceeding in accordance with the invention, blue mold development can be arrested, and fruit can be rendered immune to attack by blue mold spores, in a simple and effective manner without affecting the freshness and flavor of the fruit, the marketable life of the fruit being thus prolonged far beyond that of untreated fruit. In view of the well known persistent activity of blue mold spores even under conditions, fatal to the parent mold, the importance of this achievement is obvious. In general, the process of the invention involves applying to the fruit a mold-inhibiting reagent comprising the boric acid radical, said compound being most desirably alkaline in reaction and being emploj7ed in concentration effective to render the surface of the fruit unfavorable as a medium for blue mold development. Ordinary borax (NaiBXb + lOEUO) has been found after extensive investigation, to be especially potent in its retarding and inhibiting action in this connection, and this substance is considered at present to be the most desirable to employ *9 in practicing the invention. A water solution of borax is alkaline in reaction, but is without corrosive or other deteriorating action upon fruit to which it is applied. Boric acid is not so effective as a mold-retarder as is borax; but compounds of boron, whether acid or alkaline, appear to have a specific inhibiting action upon blue mold; and hence it is not desired to limit the invention, so far as concerns compounds of boron, to the employment of an alkaline treating solution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People of Michigan v. Matthew Scott Duff
Michigan Supreme Court, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.
580 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Broughman v. Carver
624 F.3d 670 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
Bilski v. Kappos
177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (Supreme Court, 2010)
In Re Bilski
545 F.3d 943 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
In Re Nuijten
515 F.3d 1361 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Lehman
225 F.3d 426 (Fourth Circuit, 2000)
Roller v. McKellar
711 F. Supp. 272 (D. South Carolina, 1989)
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
447 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Technitrol, Inc. v. Control Data Corporation
550 F.2d 992 (Fourth Circuit, 1977)
Application of John O. Hruby, Jr
373 F.2d 997 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 U.S. 1, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-fruit-growers-inc-v-brogdex-co-scotus-1931.