Paraffine Companies v. McEverlast, Inc.

Good Law
7 F. Supp. 565·1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1942
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 4, 1934California1,012 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mecobmick, J.

This is a suit in equity for the alleged infringement of two combination patents for pipe wrapping machines. The defenses urged are lack of invention, nonpatentability because of anticipation and noninfringement. The court at the conclusion of the hearing reserved decision until voluminous *566 depositions could be considered. These depositions filed herein December 1, 1930’, have been read and the blueprints, drawings, and other documents proffered at the time of taking said depositions have been examined. It is clear to me from such evidence that everything in issue that is claimed in either of the patents Rosener and Doane, No. 1509769', dated July 8,1934, or Rosener, No. 1686929, dated October 9,1928, except one feature that will be mentioned later in this memorandum, is anticipated by the adjustable cross-roll pipe wrapping machine that was fabricated and used by the National Tube Company in its plant at Versailles, Pa., from 1912 to 1926.

This last-mentioned machine was constantly and openly employed in the pipe wrapping industry. It gave satisfaction, and in no sense could be considered as experimental. The contention of complainant that there was no commercial or public'…

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.