Safe Stop Brake Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Safe Stop Brake Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

587 F.2d 982

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1978

Docket76-3185

StatusPublished

This text of 587 F.2d 982 (Safe Stop Brake Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Safe Stop Brake Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, 587 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The assignee of a patent sued General Motors for infringement, and appeals from a judgment holding the patent invalid.

The patent-in-suit covers an automobile seat switch activated by pressure. The evidence was in conflict, but there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the GM (Szablowski) seat switch 1 anticipated the Safe Stop (Fontaine) seat switch. 2 Szablowski filed on September 16, 1971. Fontaine filed on November 17,1971.

Confronted with the prima facie difficulty presented by the adversary’s earlier filing, plaintiff attempted to prove by lay witnesses that the Fontaine patent had been reduced to practice before that of Sza-blowski. The trial court, however, found otherwise, and we cannot say that the finding is clearly erroneous.

The above finding of itself would invalidate the Fontaine patent and end the case. We note also the assertion that Fontaine’s pressure switch as described in his claim was different from all the prior art because it was recessed into the automobile seat. The allegedly infringing switch is also recessed. The trial judge was satisfied from the evidence that the idea of recessing the switch into the seat to avoid an unmarketable lump in the seat surface was about as obvious as dumping a rock out of a shoe. We agree.

Affirmed.

1

. U.S. Patent No. 3,718,791. (General Motors)

2

. U.S. Patent No. 3,704,352. (Safe Stop)

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

PER CURIAM:

The assignee of a patent sued General Motors for infringement, and appeals from a judgment holding the patent invalid.

The patent-in-suit covers an automobile seat switch activated by pressure. The evidence was in conflict, but there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the GM (Szablowski) seat switch 1 anticipated the Safe Stop (Fontaine) seat switch. 2 Szablowski filed on September 16, 1971. Fontaine filed on November 17,1971.

Confronted with the prima facie difficulty presented by the adversary’s earlier filing, plaintiff attempted to prove by lay witnesses that the Fontaine patent had been reduced to practice before that of Sza-blowski. The trial court, however, found otherwise, and we cannot say that the finding is clearly erroneous.

The above finding of itself would invalidate the Fontaine patent and end the case. We note also the assertion that Fontaine’s pressure switch as described in his claim was different from all the prior art because it was recessed into the automobile seat. The allegedly infringing switch is also recessed. The trial judge was satisfied from the evidence that the idea of recessing the switch into the seat to avoid an unmarketable lump in the seat surface was about as obvious as dumping a rock out of a shoe. We agree.

Affirmed.

1

. U.S. Patent No. 3,718,791. (General Motors)

2

. U.S. Patent No. 3,704,352. (Safe Stop)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F.2d 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safe-stop-brake-corporation-a-florida-corporation-v-general-motors-ca9-1978.