Home/E.D. Wisconsin/Dubuque Awning & Tent Co. v. Canvas Products Corp.

Dubuque Awning & Tent Co. v. Canvas Products Corp.

247 F. Supp. 353, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 469, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9856
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedJuly 14, 1965
DocketNo. 62-C-141
StatusPublished

This text of 247 F. Supp. 353 (Dubuque Awning & Tent Co. v. Canvas Products Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dubuque Awning & Tent Co. v. Canvas Products Corp., 247 F. Supp. 353, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 469, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9856 (E.D. Wis. 1965).

Opinion

GRUBB, District Judge.

This is an action for infringement of Claims 2 and 5 of United States Letters Patent 2,892,463, issued to C. P. From-melt et al. on June 30, 1959, on an application filed May 27, 1954. Plaintiff, Du-buque Awning & Tent Company, an Iowa corporation located at Dubuque, Iowa, is the owner of the patent in suit, hereinafter referred to as the “From-melt” patent. Defendant, Canvas Products Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation located at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is charged with willful and deliberate infringement by its manufacture and sale of a structure called the “Can-Pro Loading Dock Shelter.” Plaintiff seeks in-junctive relief, damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The question of damages having been severed, trial was to the court on the issues of validity and infringement only.

Both parties have engaged in the manufacture and sale of awnings and products made from canvas for many years. Loading dock shields or shelters provide a protective enclosure between the loading dock of a warehouse or other building and rail cars or trucks. Plaintiff entered the loading dock shield business in 1954; defendant began in the late 1940’s.

Patent in Suit

Frommelt patent relates to a loading dock shield adapted for mounting on a warehouse or other enclosure to provide a shield between the enclosure and a vehicle to and from which goods are being transferred. The objects of the claimed invention include the following: The provision of a shield to keep dirt, dust, and rain water out of a loading zone, the top of which shield terminates in a straight position on release, and which shield permits adaptation thereof for use with openings of various sizes and with clearances between buildings and vehicles of differing dimensions.

In issue in this action are Claims 2 and 5 of the Frommelt patent. Claim 2, which is more detailed, reads as follows (breakdown into lettered elements added):

“2. An extensible loading dock shield for mounting on a warehouse or the like in enclosing relation to a doorway thereof comprising
(a) an extensible frame;
(b) a cover mounted on said frame and adapted to be connected to said warehouse along the top, sides and bottom of said doorway to provide an enclosure projecting outwardly from the warehouse;
(c) toggle joint means connected to the upper portion of said frame and adapted to be connected to said warehouse for extending the upper portion of said frame;
(d) means for maintaining a spreading force on the toggle joint means sufficient to extend it and thereby the upper portion of said frame and the cover portion attached thereto from their fully retracted positions to their fully extended positions and then to continue to provide an extending force on them;
(e) extension means connected to the lower portion of said frame and adapted to be connected to said warehouse for extending the lower portion of said frame; and means for maintaining a force on said extension means sufficient to extend it and thereby the lower portion of said frame and the cover portion attached thereto from their fully retracted positions to their fully extended positions and then to continue to provide an extending force on them.”

Claim 5 is substantially similar to Claim 2 but provides for optional structure omitting the bottom section of the cover.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Frommelt patent drawings, illustrative of the claims in issue, are reproduced below.

[355]

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

Related

Imhaeuser v. Buerk
101 U.S. 647 (Supreme Court, 1880)
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
339 U.S. 605 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Independent Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.
194 F.2d 945 (Seventh Circuit, 1952)
Simmons Company v. A. Brandwein & Co., and the Seng Company, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee
250 F.2d 440 (Seventh Circuit, 1957)
Kennatrack Corporation v. The Stanley Workes
314 F.2d 164 (Seventh Circuit, 1963)
Welsh Co. v. Victor A. Chernivsky, D/B/A Comfy Babe Company
342 F.2d 586 (Seventh Circuit, 1965)
Beegle v. Thomson
138 F.2d 875 (Seventh Circuit, 1943)
Flowers v. Austin-Western Co.
149 F.2d 955 (Seventh Circuit, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 F. Supp. 353, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 469, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubuque-awning-tent-co-v-canvas-products-corp-wied-1965.