Saginaw Products Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Cross-Appellee

615 F.2d 1136, 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 105, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20679
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 1980
Docket77-1662, 77-1663
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 615 F.2d 1136 (Saginaw Products Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Cross-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Saginaw Products Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Cross-Appellee, 615 F.2d 1136, 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 105, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20679 (6th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

*1137 WEICK, Circuit Judge.

The suit in the District Court was brought by Saginaw Products Corporation (Saginaw) against Eastern Airlines, Inc. (Eastern) for patent infringement.

The three United States patents in suit Nos. 3,727,946 (’946), 3,764,165 (’165) and 3,830,385 (’385) involve components of baggage trailers or carts capable of transporting half-size (LD-3) baggage containers between baggage terminal areas and jumbo (B-747) aircrafts in an airport.

A jury was waived and the trial was conducted before District Judge Pratt who heard the testimony of witnesses and examined depositions, the patents, a model of the cart in the presence of counsel, prior art and many exhibits. The only issues in the case related to validity of the patents and damages. Infringement was conceded by Eastern.

In a carefully prepared “Memorandum Opinion and Order, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” consisting of 34 pages, Judge Pratt held patents Nos. ’946 and ’385 valid and infringed and that patent No. ’165 was invalid. In another “Memorandum Opinion and Order Awarding Damages,” Judge Pratt awarded damages to Saginaw for lost profits in the amount of $163,978, statutory interest from the date of his opinion, injunctive relief and costs.

Eastern has appealed to this court asserting that the District Court erred in its rulings on Eastern’s affirmative defenses of obviousness under § 103 of the Patent Act of 1952 and overclaiming under § 112 of that Act and in awarding damages and costs instead of fixing a reasonable royalty. Saginaw has cross-appealed only on the alleged inadequacy of the award including the failure to treble damages and allow attorneys fees. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

I

In early 1970, Eastern solicited bids from several manufacturers to construct and supply a quantity of the baggage carts and provided the specifications therefor, as found by the trial judge as follows:

“1. All components had to be easily accessible for service and maintenance.
2. Any vital unattached parts such as hitch pins or lock pins were to be secured to the equipment.
3. The trailer unit had to be capable of operating and tracking satisfactorily under a sustained speed up to 20 miles per hour.
4. Each unit had to be capable of mating at either end with a like unit.
5. The units when pulled in a train of as many as four from either direction had to ‘track’ so that the last unit made the same path as the first (“Ackerman steering”).
6. The unit had to be capable of transferring containers in fore and aft directions and at 90 degrees to the fore and aft directions.
7. The transfer bed had to be capable of rotating 360 degrees in either direction; be rotatable by one man; to have locks which automatically engaged and locked the transfer bed at each 90 degree increment and which could be disengaged manually by a control lever.
8. Minimum towbar pull was to be a primary requirement.
9. The unit was to be designed to permit towing from either end without having to manipulate levers, pulls, pins, etc.” App. I, pp. 2-3 Opinion

Saginaw and Irvin Industries (Irvin), a manufacturer, submitted bids and Eastern accepted Saginaw’s design and bid. The initial order was for 325 carts which were supplied by Saginaw but it had expected to supply 1,000 carts to Eastern when needed.

Prior to filling the first order, Saginaw applied for patents on several components of the cart it had designed. The court found that “Eastern was aware of these pending patents at the very least when it began negotiating for a second order of baggage trailers.” Eastern solicited bids from Saginaw, Irvin and others for additional carts. Eastern, however, advised *1138 Saginaw that it was reluctant to accept Saginaw’s bid because Saginaw was then involved in a Chapter XI bankruptcy reorganization. Eastern accepted the bid of Irvin and furnished to Irvin one of its Saginaw carts to be used by Irvin as a model for Eastern’s requirements. The furnishing of the model by Eastern to Irvin was without the consent of Saginaw.

Saginaw had invested large sums of money in the development of its design for the cart. Irvin designed its own cart but it incorporated therein a number of components of Saginaw’s cart which it obtained from Saginaw’s model furnished to it by Eastern. As found by the District Court, these components consisted of the tow bar assembly, the eccentric locking coupling and the rotating turntable features of the Saginaw cart for which patent applications were then pending and patents later granted.

The court further found that both Eastern and Irvin had full knowledge of Saginaw’s patent application and indeed their sales agreement incorporated therein, a provision for patent indemnity whereby Irvin would also assume the defense of any patent infringement action brought by Saginaw against Eastern. Irvin built and supplied Eastern with 1006 carts, all of which had copied the three design features of Saginaw’s cart. Thus the real party in interest in this case is Irvin which conducted the defense of Eastern in the District Court and on appeal in this court.

II

The invention in Patent No. ’946 — “Tow Bar” as found by the District Court is as follows:

a. This patent involves a ‘tow bar’ device which is incorporated into steered four-wheel baggage trailer carts. It is illustrated by the drawings which comprise Appendix A of this Opinion. Identical tow bars are provided at opposite ends of the carts, as manufactured by both Saginaw and Irvin (also illustrated in Sheet 2 of Appendix A).
b. The tow bar assembly includes a ‘steering tongue’ (18) which is connected to the frame of the cart by a ‘king pin’ (42). Also ‘connected’ to the frame by that king pin is the tow bar element” (24). Both members are freely pivotable upon the king pin (42).
c. The pivoting movement of the steering tongue is transferred through tie rods (38) to the associated pair of wheels on the cart, causing a turning motion, while the rod (42a), which is connected to the arm (43), transmits pivotal movement of the steering tongue at one end of the cart to the steering tongue at the opposite end.
d. An ‘aligning lever’ (136) is ‘pivotably connected’.to the tow bar at a pivot point (126); in the middle of the ‘aligning lever,’ on the horizontal axis, is an elongate slot (132a). A bearing-type steel roller (124) is mounted on the underside of the steering tongue (18) projecting from the forward end of the steering tongue (18) and is received in the slot (132a) of the aligning lever (136). This roller running in the slot is important to the leverage advantage of this device as will be noted below.
e. A ‘locking mechanism’ is employed to selectively couple the tow bar to the aligning lever and consequently to the steering tongue.

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

Related

Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
288 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (W.D. Washington, 2003)
Trojan, Inc. v. Shat-R-Shield, Inc.
703 F. Supp. 609 (E.D. Kentucky, 1988)
Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.
658 F. Supp. 961 (N.D. Illinois, 1986)
USM Corp. v. Detroit Plastic Molding Co.
536 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Michigan, 1982)
Julien v. Gomez & Andre Tractor Repairs, Inc.
512 F. Supp. 955 (M.D. Louisiana, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
615 F.2d 1136, 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 105, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saginaw-products-corporation-cross-appellant-v-eastern-airlines-inc-ca6-1980.