Ganter
Ganter v. Unit Venetian Blind Supply Corp.
Opinion
lead Opinion
Yankwich, J.
The plaintiff charges infringement and seeks injunctive relief and damages. The defendant has denied infringement and, in a general way only, has challenged the validity of the patent.
I am of the view that Patent No. 2,391,150, and Reissue No. 22,989, are valid, but not infringed by the defendants’ devices.
Some of the principles of law applicable were discussed at the conclusion of the trial .and are not in dispute. Others were stated in the brief opinion on the application for injunction. Ganter v. Unit Venetian Blind Supply Corp., D.C.1949, 87 F.Supp. 338 . And see, Pointer v. Six Wheel Corporation, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 153 .
In the final .analysis, the case presents purely a question of fact.
Conceding that some of the claims read on the accused devices 1 , a study of these devices, in the light of the entire evidence, leads to the conclusion that neither the Uniclip nor the Multiclip infringes because “the mode of operation is different and * * * there is no equivalency of means”. Grant v. Koppl, 9 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 106, 110 . See, Walker on Patents, Dillard ed., Sec. 466; Flowers v. Austin-Western Co., 7 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 955, 958-959 .