Steigleder v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co.

First Circuit

Steigleder v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co.

176 F.2d 603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1949

DocketNo. 4411

StatusPublished

This text of 176 F.2d 603 (Steigleder v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steigleder v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co., 176 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank N. Steigleder brought suit for infringement of Letters Patent No. 1,875,184 issued to him on August 30, 1932, based upon the making and/or selling and distributing by the defendants of ball point pens alleged to embody the invention described, and claimed in said patent. Plaintiff filed a bill of particulars in response to a motion by defendants, allowed by the court. Defendants’ answer denied the infringement, and averred that the patent was invalid. There was -a request by defendants for admissions, .to which plaintiff responded. A deposition by Steigleder, taken pursuant to agreement, was filed in the case.

Thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that lack of infringement was established from the plaintiff’s own statements. After hearing, the-district court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendants. The memorandum of the district court is reported in (1948) 81 F.Supp. 143.

Summary judgment under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is' sometimes appropriate in a patent case, at least on the issue of infringement. Where it is apparent that there is no genuine issue of fact bearing on infringement, and the structure and mode of operation of the accused device are such that they may be readily comprehended by the court, and compared with the invention [605]*605described and claimed in the patent, without the need of technical explanation by the testimony of expert witnesses, then the-court, if satisfied that there is no infringement, should give summary judgment for the defendant, instead of subjecting the parties to the expense of a trial. Summary judgment on this basis was given in Vulcan Corp. v. International Shoe Machine Corp., D.C.D.Mass, 1946, 68 F.Supp. 990, and we affirmed Per Curiam in 1946, 158 F. 2d 520, certiorari denied 1947, 330 U.S. 825, 67 S.Ct. 868, 91 L.Ed. 1275. In our opinion, the case at bar was likewise an appropriate one for the summary judgment procedure. There is nothing we can add to the memorandum of the district court, which fully discusses the issue of infringement and demonstrates to our satisfaction that the .accused fountain pens lack certain of the elements covered by the combination claims in suit, and have a substantially different mode of operation.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank N. Steigleder brought suit for infringement of Letters Patent No. 1,875,184 issued to him on August 30, 1932, based upon the making and/or selling and distributing by the defendants of ball point pens alleged to embody the invention described, and claimed in said patent. Plaintiff filed a bill of particulars in response to a motion by defendants, allowed by the court. Defendants’ answer denied the infringement, and averred that the patent was invalid. There was -a request by defendants for admissions, .to which plaintiff responded. A deposition by Steigleder, taken pursuant to agreement, was filed in the case.

Thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that lack of infringement was established from the plaintiff’s own statements. After hearing, the-district court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendants. The memorandum of the district court is reported in (1948) 81 F.Supp. 143.

Summary judgment under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is' sometimes appropriate in a patent case, at least on the issue of infringement. Where it is apparent that there is no genuine issue of fact bearing on infringement, and the structure and mode of operation of the accused device are such that they may be readily comprehended by the court, and compared with the invention [605]*605described and claimed in the patent, without the need of technical explanation by the testimony of expert witnesses, then the-court, if satisfied that there is no infringement, should give summary judgment for the defendant, instead of subjecting the parties to the expense of a trial. Summary judgment on this basis was given in Vulcan Corp. v. International Shoe Machine Corp., D.C.D.Mass, 1946, 68 F.Supp. 990, and we affirmed Per Curiam in 1946, 158 F. 2d 520, certiorari denied 1947, 330 U.S. 825, 67 S.Ct. 868, 91 L.Ed. 1275. In our opinion, the case at bar was likewise an appropriate one for the summary judgment procedure. There is nothing we can add to the memorandum of the district court, which fully discusses the issue of infringement and demonstrates to our satisfaction that the .accused fountain pens lack certain of the elements covered by the combination claims in suit, and have a substantially different mode of operation.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steigleder-v-eberhard-faber-pencil-co-ca1-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack