Home/E.D. Louisiana/LAITRAM CORPORATION v. Deepsouth Packing Co.

LAITRAM CORPORATION v. Deepsouth Packing Co.

301 F. Supp. 1037, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 14, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13438
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedApril 7, 1969
DocketCiv. A. 67-861
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 301 F. Supp. 1037 (LAITRAM CORPORATION v. Deepsouth Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
LAITRAM CORPORATION v. Deepsouth Packing Co., 301 F. Supp. 1037, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 14, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13438 (E.D. La. 1969).

Opinion

RUBIN, District Judge:

Brevity may be wit’s soul but it is no part of patent litigation. This case is proof enough. It involves two patents for use in deveining shrimp. Disregarding scriptural advice, 1 and assisted no doubt by the ease with which dictating machines, electric typewriters, and elec *1040 trostatic reproduction processes produce paper work in volume, counsel have favored the court with a total of over 500 pages of briefs and memoranda. They have submitted pre-trial memoranda, trial briefs, post trial briefs, reply memoranda, second reply memoranda and even a reply to a memorandum in opposition to a “Memorandum In Reply To Defendant’s Memorandum In Opposition to Post-Argument Memorandum of Plaintiff.” In doing so, they have not overlooked any issue that might conceivably be drawn into an infringement suit or its defense. Doubtless they have been stimulated by pedagogic duty in their attempts to educate a court unlettered in patent law. But the educational process has been difficult for the student as well as lengthy for the tutor, and it remains to be seen whether the lesson has been well learned. 2

Shrimp, whether boiled, broiled, barbecued or fried, are a gustatory delight, but they did not evolve to satisfy man’s palate. Like other crustaceans, they wear their skeletons outside their bodies in order to shield their savory pink and white flesh against predators, including man. They also carry their intestines, commonly called veins, in bags (or sand bags) that run the length of their bodies. For shrimp to be edible, it is necessary to remove their shells. In addition, if the vein is removed, shrimp become more pleasing to the fastidious as well as more palatable. Until recent years, these peeling and deveining operations had always been performed by hand or with simple tools.

The Lapeyres, Fernand and James, who are assignors of the plaintiff, set out to solve the peeling problem. They succeeded in doing so, but the Skrmettas, father Paul and son Raphael, a family engaged in the shrimp business, developed a competing device. In a lengthy infringement suit, whose story has been told elsewhere, 3 the patent problems relating to the shrimp peeler were disposed of.

The machine that peeled the shrimp, however, left their veins intact. As labor costs increased, it became economically desirable to find both a less expensive way to devein large shrimp and a way to devein the medium sized shrimp that were then being processed without deveining. The Lapeyres, therefore, decided to invent a machine that would do this.

After years of effort, study, and experimentation, they finally solved part of the problem with a device remarkably simple in- operation. The invention was based on their discovery of facts that, once learned, appear obvious. These facts, and their relationship to deveining shrimp, however, had eluded all others. They consisted of nothing more than the observations that, (a) since the body of a shrimp is curved and cylindrical in shape and the heavier mass is on the outside of the curve, the center of gravity on its body is nearer the outside curve than the inside, and it, therefore, will tend to slide down an inclined surface on its side, with its outer body curve forward and downward; (b) if the shrimp slides against a sharp cutting surface with the outer curve hitting the surface first, the cutting surface will open the sand bag by the force of gravity alone, and this will in turn expose the vein; (c) if the sand bag is cut, and the vein is partially exposed, it can be drawn from the shrimp without the necessity of cutting the shrimp the entire length of the bag; and (d) so long as the cut exposes the vein, it is not necessary that the cut be centered directly on the shrimp’s body.

*1041 Having learned this, the Lapeyres patented a device that was illustrated in the patent drawings as follows:

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

Related

Autotech Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, Inc.
235 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
Matter of Vestavia Associates Ltd. Partnership
105 B.R. 680 (M.D. Florida, 1989)
Julien v. Gomez & Andre Tractor Repairs, Inc.
438 F. Supp. 763 (M.D. Louisiana, 1977)
Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.
406 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court, 1972)
The Laitram Corporation v. Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc.
443 F.2d 928 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 F. Supp. 1037, 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 14, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laitram-corporation-v-deepsouth-packing-co-laed-1969.