Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Surgical Supply

97 F. Supp. 235, 88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 346, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4277
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedFebruary 21, 1951
DocketCiv. No. 48 C 1492
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 F. Supp. 235 (Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Surgical Supply) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Surgical Supply, 97 F. Supp. 235, 88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 346, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4277 (N.D. Ill. 1951).

Opinion

HOLLY, District Judge.

Plaintiff charges defendants with infringing patent No. 2,267,973 issued to A. Demcak and by him assigned to plaintiff. Defendant Brooklyn Hospital Equipment manufactures the device which, it is alleged, infringes the patent and it has assumed the defense of this action.

The patent in suit relates to an improvement in physicians examining tables. The principle feature of the alleged invention as stated in the patent consists of means for mounting a paper supply roll on the under side of a padded adjustable rest member of the table, carried directly by the rest member, so that a web of constantly fresh paper may be drawn over the rest member for sanitary purposes in any adjusted position of the rest member while at the same time a portion of the weight of such member is counter balanced so as to facilitate ready and easy adjustment thereto.

This is a combination patent. No new element is involved. Plaintiff relies solely on the new combination of old elements. But in the combination these elements neither perform nor produce any new or different function that theretofore performed or produced them.

“The conjunction or concert of known elements must contribute something; only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable.” Great Atlantic & [236]*236Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 130. Nothing is contributed here. The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, Even before the A. & P. case cited above, no court, it’seems to me, could have held this patent valid and certainly it cannot now be held valid. The findings must be for the defendants.

The parties may submit findings of fact and conclusions of law. ■

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

Related

Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Surgical Supply Co.
193 F.2d 938 (Seventh Circuit, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 F. Supp. 235, 88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 346, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-mfg-co-v-illinois-surgical-supply-ilnd-1951.