New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Fritz

45 F. Supp. 108, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2724
District Court, W.D. New York·Decided March 26, 1942·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This is a suit for infringement of certain claims of Root Patent No. 1,732,661, application filed May 25, 1927, granted October 22, 1929, and of Root Patent No. 1,-896,594, application filed March 7, 1929, granted February 7, 1933. Admittedly the plaintiff is the owner of these patents. Suit was originally brought against the Pontiac Varnish Company, a Michigan Corporation (hereinafter called Pontiac). The complaint against the corporate defendant was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. D.C., 30 F.Supp. 89.

Pontiac has assumed the direction of the defense herein and is bearing the expense thereof.

The patents relate to varnishes and enamels for the production of so-called wrinkle finishes and to articles carrying such finishes. The manufacturer supplies the liquid to the manufacturer of the article who applies it by brush or spray. The article when covered is - subjected to a baking temperature accurately controlled. The Claims of Patent No. 1,732,661 in issue are article claims. The Claims of Patent No. 1,896,594 in issue include article, composition and method or process claims.

A “wrinkle finish” is described as one which has over the surface a series of parallel ridges running in irregular directions, of substantially the same height, closely adjacent to one another,-and following a substantially duplicate pattern and designated as regularly irregular. It *110 is aptly described as “smooth like the ripples in sand blown in parallel ridges by the wind.” ■ In recent years this particular type of wrinkle finish has obtained wide use as a covering of metals, glass, stone, cardboard and numerous other surfaces. Below are shown drawings of the Root patents and also a sample of an article of manufacture with the so-called “wrinkle finish.”

The' defenses are non-infringement, invalidity and non-liability of defendant Fritz.

The Claims in dispute, as set forth in the complaint and included in the stipulation of the parties, are 1 and 2 of Patent No. 1,732,661, and 1, 2, 4, 5, -6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of Patent No. 1,896,594.

Claim 1 of Patent No. 1,732,661 is typical of the claims of that patent in issue and reads: “An article of manufacture carrying a wrinkle baked coating of a dry *111 ing oil and a resin.” These claims are 1 and 2 of the first patent and 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 19 of the second Root patent.

*110

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

New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Fritz, 45 F. Supp. 108, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2724 (W.D.N.Y. 1942).

45 F. Supp. 108 (New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Fritz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grant v. McAuliffe
264 P.2d 944 (California Supreme Court, 1953)
Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.
191 F.2d 99 (Second Circuit, 1951)