Fowler v. Detroit Bedding Co.

47 F.2d 752, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1931
DocketNo. 5668
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 F.2d 752 (Fowler v. Detroit Bedding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fowler v. Detroit Bedding Co., 47 F.2d 752, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556 (6th Cir. 1931).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Suit for infringement of claim 21 above of Fowler patent, No. 1,332,550, for a padding bandage. The defenses were invalidity and noninfringement. If the patent is valid (which we need not decide), the invention consists in so tapering and overlapping the ends of the bat that when it is folded about the core a bandage of uniform thickness results, or in the simplicity with which the bandage is manufactured, by merely tapering the ends of the bat before folding it. For such á product the appellant has limited the claim to “tapered edges lapped on one side of the p aper core” and he is bound thereby. Lakewood Engineering Co. v. Stein, 8 F.(2d) 713, 715 (C. C. A. 6); Michigan Engine Valve Co. v. Monarch Mfg. Co., 233 F. 107, 110 (C. C. A. 6); McCallum v. Pittsburgh & Cleveland Coal Co., 268 F. 831, 835 (C. C. A. 6). All the substantial evidence indicates that appellee’s product lacked this element of appellant’s combination and therefore did not infringe. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 198 U. S. 399, 410, 25 S. Ct. 697, 49 L. Ed. 1100.

Appellee was a licensee of the California Cotton Mills Company, owner of what are called “The Mitchell Patents.” The Mitchell patent especially relevant is No. 1,497,189— 1923. Under this patent appellee manufactured and sold padding fabricated for automobile upholstering. The proof of the form which appellee’s product took is that it was made up as indicated in figures 10 and 11 of the Mitchell patent, No. 1,497,189. Neither the specifications nor claims of the Mitchell patent called for “tapered edges lapped on one side of the paper core.” Any slight tapering of the edges was not due to design, but was incidental to the manner in which the [753]*753sheet or bat of the material came from the machine or to the effect of forcing it into the pleat of the cushion.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Johnston v. Atlas Mineral Products Co.
140 F.2d 282 (Sixth Circuit, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 F.2d 752, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-detroit-bedding-co-ca6-1931.