Super Mold Corporation v. Clapp's Equipment Division, Inc., Clapp's Equipment Division, Inc. v. Super Mold Corporation

Appellant Super Mold Corporation filed a complaint in the District Court alleging infringement by appellee Clapp’s Equipment Division of a patent owned by Super Mold. Clapp’s moved for a separate trial on the issue of whether the patented device had been placed in public use or put on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent, so that the patent would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). Clapp’s then filed a motion for summary judgment and moved for the award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 . Following a hearing on the motions, the District Court rendered summary judgment in Clapp’s favor but denied its motion for attorneys’ fees. Super Mold prosecutes this appeal from the summary judgment, and Clapp’s appeals from the denial of attorneys’ fees. We affirm the judgment of the District Court on both issues.

We have recently had occasion to discuss the nature and application of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). In Cataphote Corp. v. De Soto Chemical Coatings, Inc., 356 F. 2d 24, 25 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 385 U.S. 832 , 87 S.Ct. 71 , 17 L.Ed.2d 67 (1966), we stated:

The statute thus permits the inventor to retain the secrecy of his…