Home/S.D. Florida/Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Windmere Products, Inc.

Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Windmere Products, Inc.

433 F. Supp. 710, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 354, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16100
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedApril 29, 1977
Docket76-1931-Civ-JLK
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 433 F. Supp. 710 (Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Windmere Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Windmere Products, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 710, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 354, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16100 (S.D. Fla. 1977).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.

Teledyne Corporation manufactures and markets a wall mounted adjustable spray nozzle or showerhead known as the “Water Pik SHOWER MASSAGE” Model SM-2. The chrome-colored unit is of a distinctive shape and appearance, and the internal mechanism of the nozzle is protected by three United States patents. Windmere Corporation began the importation and marketing of a device with a very similar appearance and virtually identical internal parts. Teledyne brought suit against *713 Windmere and herein seeks a temporary injunction to prevent the marketing of the Windmere product, on the grounds that the Windmere product infringes Teledyne’s United States patents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a), and the grounds that the similarity of appearance of the Wind-mere product constitutes unfair competition by creating confusion as to its origin, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. and state unfair competition laws. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1338(a), 1391, and 1400(b), and the court has pendent jurisdiction over the state unfair competition counts.

PROPRIETY OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy available at the sound discretion of the District Court. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962). Factors that must be evaluated in granting a preliminary injunction are (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury; (3) competing equities; and (4) public interest. Mount Sinai Medical Center v. Mathews, 425 F.Supp. 5 (S.D.Fla.1976), Allison v. Froehlke, 470 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1972).

Plaintiff seeks this preliminary injunction on grounds of both patent infringement and unfair competition. An injunction grounded in patent infringement would prevent the sale or marketing of spray nozzles with infringing internal structure, regardless of their appearance. Inversely, such an injunction would not prevent the sale of units that appear identical to plaintiff’s if their internal structure were different. An injunction grounded in unfair competition would have precisely the opposite effect— that is, it would prevent sale of units confusingly similar in appearance even though their internal structure differed, but it would not prevent the sale of units with duplicate internal structure if their appearance was dissimilar. Of course an injunction grounded on both patent infringement and unfair competition would prevent the sale of units with infringing internal structure or confusingly similar appearance.

THE PATENT CLAIMS

In applications for preliminary injunctions in patent cases, there is authority in some circuits that “in the absence of long acquiescence or adjudication [of the patent] an injunction will not go. . ” Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharm. Corp., 443 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1971), quoting Rosenberg v. Groov-Pin Corp., 81 F.2d 46, 47 (2d Cir. 1936) (L. Hand, J.). Judge Hand stated the rationale behind this doctrine thusly:

Examiners have neither the time nor the assistance to exhaust the prior art; nothing is more common in a suit for infringement than to find that all the important references are turned up for the first time by the industry of a defendant whose interest animates his search. It is a reasonable caution not to tie the hands of a whole art until there is at least the reasonable assurance which comes from such an incentive. Id.

This idea — that an in-depth search for prior art will be made most vehemently by an adversary and not by the Patent Office — is in itself a sound principle.

Judge Hand’s idea, however, cannot in itself support a doctrine as conservative as that expressed in Carter-W'allace. “[L]ong acquiescence or adjudication” are not the only measures of insurance that all prior art has been dredged up before the court. In this action, the parties have been before the court almost six months. Numerous hearings on the issue of patent validity and infringement have been held. The parties have vehemently presented their positions. Both parties have submitted voluminous affidavits of experts arguing the technical merits of plaintiff’s patents and the pertinent prior art. Lengthy depositions of these experts have been filed, during which they were subject to provocative cross-examination. After all this, the court is not so unfamiliar with the Teledyne patents and the prior art that it cannot rule upon *714 the probable validity of the patents or upon their probable infringement.

Defendant urges that the widely-recognized “judicial mortality of patents” renders plaintiff’s success on his patent claims unlikely. In this connection, defendant has carefully cataloged recent patent cases in this circuit and found that barely 37% survived the courtroom battle. Such statistics, while interesting in passing, are absolutely irrelevant to the issue of validity in this case. The court cannot see how the fate of other patents is related to the fate of this one at all. The high mortality rate may of course be explained by Judge Hand’s observations on the interested opponent’s thorough search of the prior art, but as the court said before, Hand’s explanation alone is not cause to bar a preliminary injunction if there is evidence in this case of adversary search of the prior art.

In the Fifth Circuit the standard of review to be applied in applications for preliminary injunctions in patent cases was stated clearly in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, 460 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1972), aff’g. 324 F.Supp. 715 (S.D.Fla.1971): “The burden is ordinarily on the party seeking preliminary injunctive protection in a patent infringement suit to demonstrate beyond question that the patent he sues on is valid and infringed, as well as showing that other equitable grounds are present.” The court must now consider whether plaintiff has met this burden.

A. PATENT VALIDITY

Ordinarily, a patent duly issued by the Patent Office is entitled to the presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282. This presumption is controverted somewhat but not removed by the fact that the patent has not been previously adjudicated valid. Other facts may reinforce the presumption, however.

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

Related

M & E DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. Worley
840 So. 2d 457 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Laboratorios Roldan, C. Por A. v. Tex International, Inc.
902 F. Supp. 1555 (S.D. Florida, 1995)
Energy Four, Inc. v. Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.
765 F. Supp. 724 (N.D. Georgia, 1991)
Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc.
678 F. Supp. 1336 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
American Parking Meter Advertising, Inc. v. Visual Media, Inc.
693 F. Supp. 1253 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
H.H. Robertson, Company v. United Steel Deck, Inc. And Nicholas J. Bouras, Inc.
820 F.2d 384 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. v. Sathers, Inc.
666 F. Supp. 655 (D. Delaware, 1987)
Design & Manufacturing v. Sharp Corp.
656 F. Supp. 178 (S.D. Ohio, 1987)
Upjohn Co. v. Riahom Corp.
641 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Delaware, 1986)
Augat, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
642 F. Supp. 506 (N.D. New York, 1986)
Entertainment & Sports Programming Network, Inc. v. Edinburg Community Hotel, Inc.
735 F. Supp. 1334 (S.D. Texas, 1986)
Zin-Plas Corp. v. Plumbing Quality AGF. Co. Ltd.
622 F. Supp. 415 (W.D. Michigan, 1985)
Harvest Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Inter-Ocean Insurance Co.
478 N.E.2d 98 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1985)
Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. v. Lazoff Bros., Inc.
537 F. Supp. 587 (D. Puerto Rico, 1982)
Merit Publications, Inc. v. Compact Publications, Inc.
411 So. 2d 312 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Southern Monorail Company v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
666 F.2d 185 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
Jenn-Air Corporation v. Modern Maid Company
499 F. Supp. 320 (D. Delaware, 1980)
Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, Inc.
626 F.2d 193 (First Circuit, 1980)
Harvey v. Wittenberg
384 So. 2d 940 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
DCA Food Industries Inc. v. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc.
470 F. Supp. 574 (S.D. New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
433 F. Supp. 710, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 354, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teledyne-industries-inc-v-windmere-products-inc-flsd-1977.