Home/Eighth Circuit/Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co.

Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co.

57 F.2d 66, 12 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 387, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3919
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 1932
DocketNo. 9277
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 F.2d 66 (Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co., 57 F.2d 66, 12 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 387, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3919 (8th Cir. 1932).

Opinion

VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judge.

August 30,1927, letters patent No. 1,641,-012 for a “Paper Box” was granted and issued to one Frank J. Schleicher, the inventor. Thereafter, on April 6,1928, Schleicher surrendered said patent to the Commissioner of Patents, and made application for the reissue thereof. June 18, 1929, reissue patent No. 17,328 was granted to said Schleicher. Thereafter, by assignment duly recorded in the United States Patent Office, appellant became the owner of this reissue patent. Appellant brought suit against appellee for infringement. Claims 6 and 7 of the reissue patent were relied upon. The court found that the claims in question were not infringed by appellee and dismissed appellant’s bill for want of equity.

Our attention is first directed to the question of validity of these claims of the reissue patent. The original patent, No. 1,641,012, in its specification states the nature and object of the invention as follows:

“My invention relates to the manufacture of boxes and particularly to the manufacture of heart-shaped cardboard boxes such as are used more particularly for candy.
“The object of my invention is to lessen the cost of such boxes by eliminating the hitherto costly hand-manufacture necessitated by forming .the sides of the box in a curve which made it impossible, from a practical standpoint, to form the bottom and sides of the box in one piece or to make the box by automatic machinery. I accomplish this object by making the sides of the box in straight sections approximately following a heart-shaped contour, and applying a base or cover sheet to [67]*67the box which is heart-shape in contour, and so nearly coincides with the side wall of the •box that there is no unsightly difference between the wall of the box and the base or cover.”

The accompanying drawings are the following:

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

Related

Insulite Co. v. Reserve Supply Co.
60 F.2d 433 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.2d 66, 12 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 387, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/box-patents-inc-v-universal-paper-box-mfg-co-ca8-1932.