Schwinn Bicycle Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Good Law
444 F.2d 295·168 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 258·1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5857
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 22, 197023950_1California2,510 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Goodyear on the ground that plaintiff-appellant Schwinn’s design patent for a bicycle seat is invalid and, if valid, is not infringed by a similar bicycle seat manufactured by Goodyear. We are in agreement with the district court’s determination of invalidity and affirm.

I. The Patent in Suit and the Prior Art Advertisement.

The patent in suit is a design patent, U. S. Patent No. D.204.121. It issued on March 15, 1966, as a result of an application filed on January 15, 1965 by Frank P. Brilando, assigned to the appellant Schwinn. Three views of the patented design are shown in figure 1 hereof.

The sole reference relied upon in ap-pellee’s motion for summary judgment is a prior art bicycle seat, also manufactured by appellant Schwinn, which is illustrated in an advertisement from the June 1963 issue of American Bi cyclist & Motorcyclist, page 9, reproduced herein as figure 2.

Appellant Schwinn concedes that this advertisement was published more than one year prior to the filing of the application which ultimately matured into the patent in suit. Schwinn also concedes that…

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.