O. B. Andrews Co. v. Packard Paper Box Co.

D. Massachusetts

O. B. Andrews Co. v. Packard Paper Box Co.

5 F. Supp. 413, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1223

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 10, 1933

DocketNo. 3812

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Supp. 413 (O. B. Andrews Co. v. Packard Paper Box Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O. B. Andrews Co. v. Packard Paper Box Co., 5 F. Supp. 413, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1223 (D. Mass. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BREWSTER, District Judge.

The above-entitled cause is before me on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The motions were heard upon affidavits filed by both plaintiff and defendants. The principal grounds upon which the court is urged to dismiss the bills of complaint are: First, that there is no infringement if the claims of the patent in suit are properly limited, and, second, that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid for want of invention or anticipation.

It seems to> be within the province of the court to dismiss a patent suit upon the pleadings and ex parte affidavits which clearly show noninfringement even where the court is called upon to construe and limit the claims of the patent. See Alemite Corporation v. Lubrair Corporation (C. C. A. First Circuit, January 3, 1933) 62 F.(2d) 899.

In the case at bar, assuming that the court could, without a hearing on the merits, limit the claims as the defendants argue they should be limited, there still would be, in my opinion, very serious doubts whether the defendants can escape the charge of infringement. Moreover, I-fail, to see how they could be limited without an inquiry into the prior art and the records of the patent office.

Whether the patent was invalid by reason of anticipation or want of invention are questions which cannot be properly determined until final hearing. Deitel v. La Minuette Trading Co. (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 41; I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. (C. C. A.) 281 F. 5.

The prior patents cited by the defendants are inadequate to establish anticipation of the invention covered by the patent in suit.

I therefore overrule the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

As to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, the facts disclosed by the affidavits would seem to warrant the exercise by this court of its power to grant injunctive relief, especially since an injunction will not work any serious hardship to the defendants. It was represented that the manufacturing of the alleged infringing article constituted only a very small percentage of the business of the corporate defendant.

Therefore, a temporary injunction may issue as prayed for by the plaintiff.'

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

BREWSTER, District Judge.

The above-entitled cause is before me on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions to dismiss the bill of complaint. The motions were heard upon affidavits filed by both plaintiff and defendants. The principal grounds upon which the court is urged to dismiss the bills of complaint are: First, that there is no infringement if the claims of the patent in suit are properly limited, and, second, that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid for want of invention or anticipation.

It seems to> be within the province of the court to dismiss a patent suit upon the pleadings and ex parte affidavits which clearly show noninfringement even where the court is called upon to construe and limit the claims of the patent. See Alemite Corporation v. Lubrair Corporation (C. C. A. First Circuit, January 3, 1933) 62 F.(2d) 899.

In the case at bar, assuming that the court could, without a hearing on the merits, limit the claims as the defendants argue they should be limited, there still would be, in my opinion, very serious doubts whether the defendants can escape the charge of infringement. Moreover, I-fail, to see how they could be limited without an inquiry into the prior art and the records of the patent office.

Whether the patent was invalid by reason of anticipation or want of invention are questions which cannot be properly determined until final hearing. Deitel v. La Minuette Trading Co. (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 41; I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. (C. C. A.) 281 F. 5.

The prior patents cited by the defendants are inadequate to establish anticipation of the invention covered by the patent in suit.

I therefore overrule the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

As to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, the facts disclosed by the affidavits would seem to warrant the exercise by this court of its power to grant injunctive relief, especially since an injunction will not work any serious hardship to the defendants. It was represented that the manufacturing of the alleged infringing article constituted only a very small percentage of the business of the corporate defendant.

Therefore, a temporary injunction may issue as prayed for by the plaintiff.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Supp. 413, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-b-andrews-co-v-packard-paper-box-co-mad-1933.

Opinion

I therefore overrule the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack