Harig Products, Inc. v. K. O. Lee Company

Seventh Circuit

Harig Products, Inc. v. K. O. Lee Company

594 F.2d 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

Docket77-2154

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 594 F.2d 609 (Harig Products, Inc. v. K. O. Lee Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harig Products, Inc. v. K. O. Lee Company, 594 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harig Products, Inc., assignee of the Mueller patent, U.S. Patent No. 3,030,744, which is entitled “Air Film Bearing for Machine Tools,” brought suit against K. O. *610 Lee Company, et al., alleging infringement of Claim 3 of the Mueller patent. Lee denied infringement and asserted that the patent was invalid for obviousness under section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. § 103. Lee also asserted the defenses of invention by another and prior invention, based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f) and (g). The district court rejected the sections 102(f) and (g) defenses, but judged the patent invalid for obviousness under section 103. 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 292 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 18, 1977). From that judgment Harig appealed. We affirm.

We adopt as our opinion the Memorandum Decision of the district court, with the caveat that all references therein to the concept of synergism must be read in light of our recent opinion in Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co., No. 77-1872 (7th Cir., Feb. 1, 1979). Applying the rubric of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13, 86 S.Ct. 684, 691-692, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), to the district court’s findings leads to the conclusion that “the subject matter [of the Mueller patent] as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The patent is therefore invalid, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harig Products, Inc., assignee of the Mueller patent, U.S. Patent No. 3,030,744, which is entitled “Air Film Bearing for Machine Tools,” brought suit against K. O. *610 Lee Company, et al., alleging infringement of Claim 3 of the Mueller patent. Lee denied infringement and asserted that the patent was invalid for obviousness under section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. § 103. Lee also asserted the defenses of invention by another and prior invention, based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f) and (g). The district court rejected the sections 102(f) and (g) defenses, but judged the patent invalid for obviousness under section 103. 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 292 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 18, 1977). From that judgment Harig appealed. We affirm.

We adopt as our opinion the Memorandum Decision of the district court, with the caveat that all references therein to the concept of synergism must be read in light of our recent opinion in Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co., No. 77-1872 (7th Cir., Feb. 1, 1979). Applying the rubric of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13, 86 S.Ct. 684, 691-692, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), to the district court’s findings leads to the conclusion that “the subject matter [of the Mueller patent] as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The patent is therefore invalid, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 F.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harig-products-inc-v-k-o-lee-company-ca7-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack