Graham v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY OF KANSAS CITY

216 F. Supp. 272, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 864, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10053
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedMarch 18, 1963
Docket12538-2
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 F. Supp. 272 (Graham v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY OF KANSAS CITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY OF KANSAS CITY, 216 F. Supp. 272, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 864, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10053 (W.D. Mo. 1963).

Opinion

GIBSON, Chief Judge.

On February 8, 1963, this Court entered its Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law in this cause. At that time the parties were granted ten days in which to suggest any proposed changes or modifications in the said opinion and findings. The suggested changes and modifications were duly filed by both parties, and duly considered by the Court, and certain changes and modifications were considered necessary by the Court. Therefore, the Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law entered herein on February 8, 1963, are hereby set aside and the following Amended Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law are entered in their place:

This is an action for infringement of United States Letters Patent Number 2,627,798, which was issued to plaintiff William T. Graham on February 10, 1953. The patent was issued for a “Clamp for Vibrating Shank Plows,” and will hereinafter be referred to as the “798” patent. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction, an accounting, and damages. Defendants contend that the 798 patent was void or invalid because of lack of novelty or invention, because of anticipation, because of a prior use more than one year prior to the date of the application for such patent, and further because the subject matter of the patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art due to the status of the prior art. Defendants also assert the claim of “file wrapper estoppel,” that is, that because of certain proceedings in the Patent Office during the processing of the 798 patent, plaintiffs are estopped to assert infringement by defendants. Defendants also contend that, if the patent is valid, it has not been infringed and defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the 798 patent is void and invalid.

*273 Defendants rely on the prior patents and devices as showing the state of the prior art as follows:

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 F. Supp. 272, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 864, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-john-deere-company-of-kansas-city-mowd-1963.