Shelly Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Co.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The essence of the argument between the parties upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment on count one is whether or not it can be determined as a matter of law that the defendants’ CM-25 series indicator light does in fact produce a tight frictional fit or clamping of the lamp lead wires within the conductive receptacles which is substantially different from the “loose fit” as defined by the claims of the patent in suit.

It appears clear from a reading of the patent in the light of the representations made in the file wrapper that the claims of the patent in suit are expressly limited to a “loose fit” between the bulb lead wire and the tubular conductor and in addition are expressly limited to tubular conductors having an interior diameter “substantially larger than” the exterior diameter of the bulb lead wire. On page 35 of the file before the Patent Office plaintiff’s counsel in attempting to distinguish the Atkin’s patent makes the following statement:

Plaintiff contends that even though it appear that the engagement of the contact wires in defendants’ construction may be somewhat less “loose” than called for in plaintiff’s patent it is only a matter…