Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Electrical Supply, Inc.

431 F.2d 539
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 21, 1970
Docket28599_1
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 431 F.2d 539 (Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Electrical Supply, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Electrical Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinions

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

The subject of this patent-infringement suit is lamp-post bases. The trial court held appellees’ patent on their lamppost base valid and found appellants liable for infringement. On this appeal, we agree with the trial court that the patent was valid, but we find the judgment of infringement to be based upon an overly generous reading of the claims, and accordingly we reverse and render judgment for appellants.

Both companies have been in the lamppost base business for a number of years. Before either the patent at suit issued or the allegedly infringing device was marketed, Pfaff & Kendall, manufacturer of the accused device for appellant Allied, manufactured a device called the “Calso base.” Although it never achieved a high degree of commercial success, the Calso base embodied a number of advantageous ideas, some of which were old and some new. The essential feature of the base was a hinge attached to its bottom that allowed the entire pole to swing down to the ground for easy installation and maintenance of lamps (see Figure 1). The base itself was a hollow pedestal, terminating at its upper end in a pole. It had a removable plate that allowed access to the transformer and wiring inside. The Calso base was used mainly in the middle and late 1950’s, but its bulk and lack of strength caused it to have disadvantageous properties that in turn induced Allied to discontinue merchandising it.

The patented base, which Allied is accused of infringing, is manufactured by Sterner Lighting, Inc., one of the ap-pellees. Sterner filed its application in 1960 and began at that time to merchandise its base, which proved highly successful commercially. This base is stronger and smaller than the Calso device, partly because the electrical components that must go into it had been more carefully developed by 1960 and were themselves smaller. The base is a flat plate attached to the bottom of the pole, hinged at one edge, with a short border hanging down and supported on the edge opposite the hinge by two knobs coming out of the foundation (see Figure 2). The device can be easily operated by one or two men. Its sales rose from approximately $1,000 in 1960 to nearly $2,-000,000 in 1967.

About 1964 Pfaff & Kendall and its customers began to feel pressure from the success of the Sterner device. Builders and architects engaged in area lighting projects had begun to specify the Sterner base to an extent that it was cutting into Allied’s customers’ markets. One of Pfaff & Kendall’s sales managers requested that Pfaff & Kendall's engineering department construct a base that would have the advantageous characteristics of the Sterner device. Engineering replied with the suggestion that Pfaff & Kendall use the old Calso base, to which a Pfaff & Kendall marketing manager replied, “This base is a killer. It can get away. That is one reason it is no longer used.” Thus there can be no question that it was in response to competition from the Sterner device that Pfaff & Kendall developed the base (sold by it to Allied) that is here accused of infringing the Sterner patent (see Figure 3). Pfaff & Kendall was clearly trying to reproduce the ad[541]*541vantageous features of that device. The Allied base shares common characteristics with the Sterner base: It is short and low to the ground, it necessitates placement of the electrical essentials in the pole, and it consists, in part, of a flat plate at the bottom of the pole horizontal to the ground and attached to the hinge. Like the Sterner base, it is light, strong, and easy to operate.

The question of validity of the patent is the first one we must consider, because of the deep public- interest in the existence of patent monopolies. See Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 5th Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 555. Allied argues that it is invalid both because it is obvious and because it is anticipated by the prior art. After consideration of this question, we take up the second issue in the case, which is whether the Allied device infringes the claims of the patent when those claims are properly construed.

I. VALIDITY OF THE PATENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ITS CLAIMS

A. Anticipation

Appellant Allied first argues that the patent is invalid because it was anticipated by the Calso device. The Calso base and the patented invention of course have some characteristics in common, most notably the hinge, but there are also major elements that make the patented device a different invention from Calso. These differences are the essence of the patent. Sterner’s licensor, in describing the patent in the trial court, pointed out the following differences between it and the prior art: (1) The base plate is flat and attached to the bottom of the pole and bolts around its edges are used to keep it down. (2) The ballast (that is, the weighting material, which also happens to be the electrical equipment) is in the pole itself rather than in the base. (3) Ventilation space is provided at the bottom. (4) The sides of the base are covered by a skirt attached to the base plate (5) “Bosses,” or knobs, from below, hold up the edge of the base plate that is not supported by the hinge.

In order to show anticipation, Allied’s witnesses attempted to show that the Calso device embodied equivalents of all these characteristics. For example, testimony equated the sides of the Calso pyramidal base,with the pole on the patented device, in order to show that the ballast in Calso was also in the pole. The trouble with this approach is that the Calso pedestal base is different from a pole in structure: It is bigger, heavier, and not as strong. Similarly, the testimony equated the sides of the Calso pedestal, several feet high, with the skirt surrounding the patented device, which is only a few inches high. These elements serve the same functions in the two devices, but again they are structurally different. The jury found against Allied on the issue of anticipation.

Anticipation is largely a question of fact. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 1965, 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545; Swofford v. B & W Inc., 5th Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 362; American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Drexler, 5th Cir. 1955, 220 F.2d 930, 932-933. There are cases in which anticipation depends so heavily upon issues of law that it may be reviewed directly by an appellate court, but this is not such a case. Cf. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., supra. A jury verdict on the factual issue of anticipation will not be overturned unless fair-minded men could not disagree as to a contrary result. We hold that the jury’s finding that the patent was not anticipated by the Calso device is not reversible on this appeal.

B. Obviousness

Allied also urges that the patent is invalid because the innovations that make it what it is would be obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art. Obviousness is a difficult, elusive standard to apply. The Supreme Court has recently dealt with the concept in several opinions. In one such case, United States v. Adams, 1965, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct.

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

Related

FMC CORPORATION v. SHARDA USA LLC
E.D. Pennsylvania, 2024
HSM Portfolio LLC v. Elpida Memory Inc.
160 F. Supp. 3d 708 (D. Delaware, 2016)
Nassau Precision Casting v. Acushnet Company, Inc.
566 F. App'x 933 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.
665 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D. Louisiana, 2009)
A. G. Design & Associates LLC v. Trainman Lantern Co.
271 F. App'x 995 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Helena Chemical Co.
160 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. California, 2001)
Buehler AG v. Ocrim S.P.A. Ocrim America, Inc.
836 F. Supp. 1305 (N.D. Texas, 1993)
Clements Industries, Inc. v. A. Meyers & Sons Corp.
712 F. Supp. 317 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Whitehall Corp. v. Western Geophysical Co. of America
664 F. Supp. 1056 (S.D. Texas, 1986)
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
559 F. Supp. 229 (N.D. Alabama, 1983)
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Dart Industries, Inc.
549 F. Supp. 716 (D. Delaware, 1982)
Janex Corporation v. Bradley Time
460 F. Supp. 383 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co.
433 F. Supp. 666 (S.D. Illinois, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 F.2d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterner-lighting-inc-v-allied-electrical-supply-inc-ca5-1970.