Rein J. Groen and William A. Rice v. General Foods Corporation

Good Law
402 F.2d 708·159 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 332·1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5363
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 4, 196822059_1California1,307 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ely, J.

The appellants, plaintiffs in the court below, sought relief for alleged infringement of their Letters Patent Number 2,950,203. Several alleged infringers were originally joined as defendants, but the appellants dismissed their suit against all except General Foods Corporation, the present appellee.

The District Court granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, holding the patent in suit to be invalid and not reaching the claim of infringement. This appeal followed.

The scope of the patent, entitled “Process of Quick-Freezing Raw Onions,” is defined in a single, briefly-stated claim which reads as follows:

In presenting their appeal, the appellants first contend, in effect, that it is never proper to dispose of a suit alleging patent infringement by summary judgment. Their advocacy of this broad proposition is based primarily upon two statements made by a Massachusetts district judge in two cases decided by him. See Baker v. First National Stores, 64 F. Supp. 979 (D.C.Mass.1946); American Optical Co. v. New Jersey Optical Co., 58 F.Supp. 601 (D.C.Mass.1944). In Baker , the district judge made a general statement that “patent validity is an issue not rightly disposed of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.