Knipschild

Chapman Dehydrater Co. v. Knipschild

Good Law
19 F. Supp. 394·1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1881
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 18, 1937No. 4142California1,390 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sure, J.

Letters patent, No. 1,464,338, for a dehydrator, were issued on August 7, 1923, to Romolo L. Puccinelli, who thereafter assigned his rights thereunder to plaintiff. In his specifications Puccinelli stated that his *395 invention “relates to dehydrators of the type adapted for handling fruits, vegetables and like products, and especially to improvements in the construction and arrangement thereof which will permit greater thermal efficiency; economical handling of the product to be dried, and greater uniformity as far as results are concerned.”

This is the third time that the .alleged invention of the Puccinelli patent has been 'submitted to this court for consideration and decision. The first case, Chapman Dehydrater v. Knipschild, Equity No. 300, claiming infringement, was tried at Sacramento on May 14, 1931. 1 In deciding the case, I stated that although it appeared that a device of practical utility had been manufactured in accordance with the teachings o.f Puccinelli, I doubted if invention were present, but resolved the doubt in favor of validity of the patent and found noninfringement. No appeal was taken. The second case, Chapman Dehydrater Co. v. Crenshaw, Equity No.…

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.