Home/D. New Jersey/Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.

Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.

481 F. Supp. 573
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedMay 25, 1979
DocketCiv. A. 76-791
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 481 F. Supp. 573 (Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 573 (D.N.J. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

MEANOR, District Judge.

This is an action asserting infringement of United States Patents No. 3,261,508 *576 (“508 Patent”) and No. 3,173,583 (“583 Patent”) and for an accounting for profits and damages arising therefrom.

Plaintiffs are Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Inc. Wahl is president of Vibra Screw, Inc. and owner and patentee of the ’583 Patent issued March 16, 1965 and the ’508 Patent issued July 19,1966. (Complaint ¶ 5.) Vibra Screw, Inc. is a corporation of New Jersey and is the exclusive United States licensee under the two patents. (Complaint ¶ 5; Admitted in ¶ 5 of the Answer.) By virtue of such licensee arrangement, it is alleged and uncontested that Wahl is receiving a royalty from Vibra Screw of 2V2% of the net sales price of all patented devices sold by Vibra Screw.

Defendant Rexnord, Inc. is a corporation of Wisconsin.

Wahl charges, inter alia, that Rexnord, Inc. is making, using and offering for sale vibratory bin activators embodying the inventions described and claimed in the ’508 and ’583 Patents. 1 Rexnord counterclaimed for recovery of damages and other appropriate relief on account of alleged antitrust violations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 1px solid var(--green-border)">2. Defendant maintains that plaintiffs filed patent infringement claims in Idaho for no other purpose but to harass Rexnord and potential customers thereof in the sale of vibrating bin bottoms. Furthermore, defendant contends that Wahl and Vibra Screw engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade via the maintenance of unfounded patent infringement litigation, thereby promoting the sale of Wahl’s bin activators and discouraging prospective purchasers from buying such equipment from others.

Wahl, on May 2, 1978, in response to Rexnord’s counterclaims, moved for summary judgment with respect to the Sherman Act, §§ 1 and 2 violations. Rexnord responded with a summary judgment motion seeking a ruling that there was no patent infringement of the ’508 patent ‘by the Rexnord vibratory bin activator. Rexnord asserts that there was double patenting between the ’508 Patent and Wahl’s design Patent No. 202,068 (“068 Patent”), thereby invalidating the ’508 Patent. Finally, Wahl moved for a summary judgment to the effect that the ’508 Patent was not invalid for double patenting.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 and venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE PATENTING IS GRANTED.

The defendant, Rexnord, argues that the ’508 utility patent is invalid for double patenting in view of the ’068 design patent. The material-receiving member of the bin promoter as shown in the design patent is the same as that shown in the ’508 Patent. See diagrams of the ’068 and ’508 Patents, infra. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that the design patent does not show the internal configuration of the material-receiving member, and, therefore, it is inappropriate to conclude that the bin activator of the ’068 design patent has a plurality of concave surfaces as called for by the claims of the ’508 utility patent.

Patent ’068 is a design patent and claims “the ornamental design for a storage bin flow promotor as shown and described.” Such patent was issued on August 24, 1965 for a period of 14 years. Its exclusive licensee is plaintiff, Vibra Screw, Inc. The ’068 design patent includes the following diagrams: 2

*577

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

Related

Scooter Store, Inc. v. SpinLife. Com, LLC
777 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (S.D. Ohio, 2011)
Buehler AG v. Ocrim S.P.A. Ocrim America, Inc.
836 F. Supp. 1305 (N.D. Texas, 1993)
Buehler AG v. Ocrim, S.P.A.
836 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Texas, 1992)
Levi Case Co., Inc. v. ATS Products, Inc.
788 F. Supp. 428 (N.D. California, 1992)
Nurse Midwifery Associates v. Hibbett
689 F. Supp. 799 (M.D. Tennessee, 1988)
Carman Industries, Inc. v. Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Inc.
724 F.2d 932 (Federal Circuit, 1983)
Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Incorporated v. Rexnord, Inc
624 F.2d 1169 (Third Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 F. Supp. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wahl-v-rexnord-inc-njd-1979.