Broder

General Foods Corp. v. Broder

Good Law
80 F.2d 492·28 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 19·1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3330
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 9, 1935No. 7926California1,210 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

The plaintiff manufactures and sells a jelly forming substance containing pectin in solution, derived from apples, under the trade name “Certo.” The defendant manufactures and sells substantially the same solution of pectin derived from citrus fruit under the name of “J el-Jam.” The plaintiffs product is manufactured in accordance with the process claim of expired patent No. 1,082,682, hut the defendant’s product is not so manufactured.

This action is brought to enjoin the defendant from infringing a later patent, No. 3,304,166, for the process of making “jellies and jams by a short boil made possible by the use of a concentrated pectous solution,” or a “proportional quantity of concentrated fruit pectin” by a “short boil.” The plaintiff thus defines its monopoly under patent No. 1,304,166: “The monopoly of the patent in suit covers only a pectous solution when concentrated to a minimum, 1 [pectous solution], 4 [sugar], and 2 [water] degree, and used to secure the new results, benefits and advantages of the short boil procedure as defined in the patent in suit.”

The defendant admits that.it sells substantially the same pectous solution to be used in substantially the same way to…

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.