B & M Corp. v. Koolvent Aluminum Awning Corp.

156 F. Supp. 691, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2846
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedNovember 26, 1957
DocketNo. IP 56-C-66
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 F. Supp. 691 (B & M Corp. v. Koolvent Aluminum Awning Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
B & M Corp. v. Koolvent Aluminum Awning Corp., 156 F. Supp. 691, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2846 (S.D. Ind. 1957).

Opinion

HOLDER, District Judge.

The plaintiff, a Louisiana corporation, whose principal stockholder and officer is Lionel Babin, filed this action against Koolvent Aluminum Awning Corporation of Indiana for infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 2,542,919 (hereinafter called Freeman patent), insofar as claims 1 to 10, inclusive, are concerned, an accounting for profits and damages therefor, injunction for their continued infringement, and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1338, 1400 and 1694.

The case develops a familiar pattern of facts characterized in that class of patent cases of a simple improvement purportedly patented which attempts to recapture a combination of expired and expiring patents, now soon to be public [693]*693property, and capturing a vast manufacturing and sales organization together with their markets covering the entire country, all developed by the owners and licensees of the expired and expiring patents.

The Freeman patent was issued on February 20, 1951, and ultimately assigned to plaintiff. This purported invention relating to Eigid Type Sheet Material Awnings is an improvement of the Houseman patent, hereinafter described. The Freeman patent describes a ventilated awning primarily used ex-teriorly on buildings and in connection with windows, porches and the like. The feature of the Freeman patent principally in issue is the provision of an improved fastener in the form of a keying clip for rigidly but removably securing complemental panels of channel-shaped configuration, called pans and covers, together to form a rigid roof for a ventilated metal awning. The key is so shaped as to enable the same to be retained in the pans and covers and is adapted for adjustable attachment to the supporting framework for securing the pans and covers thereto. The “keying clip fastener” is metal in the general shape of an “I”. The horizontal bottom bar of the “I” is folded to form a spring clip which is affixed to the frame of thin metal by inserting the frame between the folded metal or clip of the “keying clip fastener”. The vertical stem of the “keying clip fastener” extends up between the two spaced pans of the roof resting on the frame. Near both ends and under the top horizontal bar of the “I”, keying clip fastener, there is a notch which hooks over inturned lips of edges of two pans and holds them so spaced down on the frame. The covers equipped with in-turned lips along each edge are pushed down perpendicularly over the two end edges of the top horizontal bar of the “I”, keying clip fastener, hooking and securing the cover without engaging the pans and covers thus permitting ventilation and light to enter between the covers and pans. In the alternative, the assembly of the pans and covers could be accomplished by sliding them into position.

The Freeman patent’s “keying clip fastener” obviates the use of screws and equivalent fasteners through the pans and covers thus eliminating water seepage through screw holes in the pans and covers; permits assembly on the buildings, piece by piece as opposed to unit assembly on the ground and cumbersome erection by hoist, and makes for ease of attachment and removal, all with a saving of time and cost.

Drawings taken from the patent are illustrations, by way of example, of the preferred embodiments of the Freeman patent necessary to the disposition of this case and set forth in Appendix A.

The defendant admits it has been manufacturing metal ventilated awnings of the kind described in plaintiff’s complaint since the year 1948, containing the “keying clip fastener” and inturned lip of the pan and cover members of the roof thereof at the suggestion of its licensor, Koolvent Metal Awning Corporation of America under the Houseman patent.

The defendant contends that the Freeman patent is invalid for the reason that the inventor is not the sole and first inventor of the subject matter thereof; that the invention was known and used by others prior to the Freeman patent, or is shown in nine printed patents and publications popularly known as the Braunstein, Bloss et al., Bloss, Houseman, Tapman, Doe, Huntington, Harrison et al. and Helt patents all of which are hereinafter cited except the Helt patent.

The defendant also contends that the Freeman patent is invalid for the reason that the differences, if any, between the subject matter sought to be patented by the Freeman patent and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time it was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.

[694]*694The defendant further contends that the Freeman patent is invalid for the reason that it purports to cover and claim more than the alleged invention disclosed; that it purports to cover an invention which was not the invention of the patentee, and that the claims of said patent are directed to an aggregation, or to an old and exhausted combination of elements.

The defendant also alleges other defenses of laches; estoppel; that George Houseman by reason of a cooperative clause in the assignment of the Houseman patent to plaintiff is a necessary party to this litigation; that no timely notice of infringement was given on plaintiff’s product or to defendant; that defendant being a licensee of an assignee of the Houseman patent has the right to use the Freeman patent by reason of the plaintiff being an assignee of the Houseman patent who was bound by a cooperative contract with the Houseman patent inventor; or that Babin and not Freeman was the inventor. It is unnecessary for the court to discuss the evidence or the legal principles applicable to these defenses in view of the conclusion herein reached of the invalidity of the Freeman patent. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 52.06 (1), (1951 Ed.).

Prior to the Freeman patent, United States Letters Patent No. 2,098,705 were issued on November 9, 1937, and reissued on January 10, 1939, as reissue No. 20,975, hereinafter called the Houseman patent. The Houseman patent was assigned to plaintiff for the State of Louisiana and to the defendant’s licensor, Koolvent Metal Awning Corporation of America for many states of the United States including the State of Indiana.

The Houseman invention was an improvement of the Matthews primary patent, United States Letters Patent No. 2,069,893 and reissue No. 21,053 of which primary patent the plaintiff was an assignee and defendant a licensee of Koolvent Metal Awning Corporation of America, assignee.

The Houseman patent relates to sheet metal awnings. It provides for a ventilated roof structure formed of channel-like slats, called “pans”, extending up and down the slope of the roof, the slats on the bottom having upturned side flanges spaced from one another. The upper slats, called “covers”, have down-turned side flanges and cover the spaces between the pans. The pans were mounted on a crossbar and the covers supported on brackets secured to the crossbars that went up between the pans to the covers. In application bolts or screws were used in the assembly thereof through the pans, to secure them to the crossbars, through the covers, to secure them to the brackets and through the crossbars, to secure them to the brackets.

Drawings taken from the Houseman patent are illustrative, by way of example, of the preferred embodiments of the Houseman patent necessary to the disposition of this case and with its 19 claims are set forth in Appendix B.

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

Related

General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co.
283 F. Supp. 100 (N.D. Illinois, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 F. Supp. 691, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-m-corp-v-koolvent-aluminum-awning-corp-insd-1957.