Kilmer Manuf'g Co. v. Griswold

Not specified in text
Decided Filed Not specifiedCircuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Disposition
affirmed
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York
Filed
Not specified
Decided
Judge
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge
Posture
Final decree dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991 after earlier interlocutory proceedings
Plaintiff/Patent Owner (1)
KILMER MANUF’G CO.
W. H. Van Steenbergh
v.
Defendants/Accused Infringers (1)
GRISWOLD et al.
Edwin H. Drown
Other parties: Irving A. Kilmer — Patentee/Inventor

Overview

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

Case summary

The Kilmer Manufacturing Company appealed from a final decree of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York dismissing its bill for infringement of patent No. 282,991, which covered improvements in adjustable bale ties. The patent, granted to Irving A. Kilmer, described a bale tie with a clasp made of heavier wire than the band wire, having a pinching angle to grip the band. The circuit court found claims 1 and 2 invalid due to anticipation by the earlier Smith patent (No. 159,463) and lack of patentable invention. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Smith patent anticipated Kilmer's claims, as it disclosed a clasp made of material larger than the band wire with V-shaped recesses that pinched the wire. The court found that substituting round wire for flat material was a mechanical improvement rather than a patentable invention, and that round wire clasps were well-known in the prior art. Thus, claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991 were invalid.

Abstract

The patent holder appealed a dismissal of its infringement suit, claiming a patent for improvements in adjustable bale ties featuring a clasp of heavier wire with a pinching angle. The lower court invalidated claims 1 and 2 due to anticipation by an earlier patent disclosing a similar clasp with V-shaped recesses that pinched the wire, finding substitution of round wire merely a mechanical improvement lacking patentability. The appellate court affirmed the invalidity of the claims based on prior art.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinion
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judgejoined by LAGOMBE, Circuit Judge, TOWNSEND, District Judge
  • Claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991 are invalid due to anticipation by Smith patent
  • Substitution of round wire for flat material lacks patentable novelty
  • Improvement is mechanical rather than inventive
  • Prior art shows round wire clasps were well-known

Jurisdiction

not challenged
Subject matter
Patent infringement appeal from federal circuit court
Jurisdictional facts
  • Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York
  • Case involves patents and infringement claims

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Final decree dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991 after earlier interlocutory proceedings
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal from final decree
Preserved issues
  • Validity of claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991
  • Anticipation by prior art
  • Patentable novelty

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name
KILMER MANUF’G CO. v. GRISWOLD et al.
Docket number
Not specified in text
Court
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Trial court
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York
Trial court judge
Not specified
Filed
Not specified
Decided
Opinion author
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
LAGOMBE, Circuit JudgeSHIPMAN, Circuit JudgeTOWNSEND, District Judge

Issues & holdings

1
Issues raised
1
affirmed
1
Holdings
Standard of review

De novo for patent validity, factual findings reviewed for clear error

Disposition rationale

Claims anticipated by prior Smith patent and lacking patentable novelty

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Validity of claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991
Claims 1 and 2 are invalid due to anticipation by prior art and lack of patentable novelty
The improvement described in claims 1 and 2 (changing slotted flat plate to eye of heavy wire with acute angle) was anticipated by Smith patent (No. 159,463) which disclosed similar clasp made of material larger than band wire with V-shaped recesses. Substitution of round wire for flat material was mechanical rather than inventive, and round wire clasps were well-known in prior art.
Unanimous (implied from opinion)binding precedent

Error analysis

  • Trial court erred in dismissing bill and finding claims 1 and 2 invalid — evidentiary · no error foundNot applicable as no error found · not applicable

Statutory interpretation

1
Statute
Patent laws (not specified)
Question
What constitutes patentable invention versus mechanical improvement
Court's reading
Substitution of round wire for flat material in bale tie clasp is a mechanical improvement lacking patentable novelty, especially when prior art shows similar concepts
Canons applied
Anticipation requires prior disclosure of all elementsLack of invention when improvement is obvious to mechanical mind

Standards of review

  • Patent validity and anticipation — de novo Legal questions of patent validity and anticipation reviewed de novo

Timeline

8
Events
— Not specified
Span
factual eventcited in opinion

Irving A. Kilmer granted patent No. 242,655 for bale tie with flat metal plate clasp having slot with sharp edges

Earlier patent had defect where sharp edges cut wire

Irving A. Kilmer
factual eventcited in opinion

Kilmer granted patent No. 282,991 for improvements in adjustable bale ties

Patent in suit, claimed improvement over earlier design

Irving A. Kilmer
factual eventcited in opinion

Kilmer granted patent No. 372,375 for improvements in bale ties

Another patent involved in earlier proceedings

Irving A. Kilmer
appeal eventcited in opinion

Circuit Court of Appeals reversed decree regarding patent No. 372,375, holding it apparently wanting in invention

Outcome: Reversed

Previous appellate decision on related patent

Circuit Court of Appeals judges appellate court
appeal eventcited in opinion

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed decree dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991

Outcome: Affirmed

Current appellate decision

LAGOMBE, Circuit Judge · SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge · TOWNSEND, District Judge appellate court
Not specifiedprocedural eventcited in opinion

Bill in equity filed by Kilmer Manufacturing Company against Griswold defendants for patent infringement

Outcome: Case filed

Initiation of infringement lawsuit

Kilmer Manufacturing Company · J. W. Griswold · F. B. Griswold trial court
Not specifiedrulingcited in opinion

Circuit court entered interlocutory injunction, finding claims of No. 282,991 invalid but second claim of No. 372,375 valid and infringed

Outcome: Mixed ruling

Initial determination on patent validity and infringement

Circuit court judge trial court
Not specifiedrulingcited in opinion

Circuit court entered final decree dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991

Outcome: Dismissed claims regarding patent No. 282,991

Final trial court decision appealed from

Circuit court judge trial court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date
Not specified
Location
Not specified

Key facts

6 facts
  1. Irving A. Kilmer patented improvements in adjustable bale ties (patents No. 282,991 and No. 372,375)
  2. Earlier patent No. 242,655 had defect where sharp edges of slot cut and weakened wire
  3. Kilmer's improvement changed slotted flat plate to eye made of heavy wire with rounded edges to prevent cutting
  4. Claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991 describe bale tie with clasp made of wire larger than band wire and having pinching angle
  5. Defendants accused of infringing these claims
  6. Prior Smith patent (No. 159,463) described similar bale tie with V-shaped recesses in clasp made of material larger than band wire

Disputed questions

  • Whether Kilmer's improvement constituted patentable invention over prior art
  • Whether claims 1 and 2 were anticipated by Smith patent

Procedural history

6 steps
  1. Bill in equity filed for injunction against infringement
  2. Circuit court dismissed bill as to patent No. 282,991
  3. Earlier interlocutory injunction entered on other patent (No. 372,375)
  4. Previous appeal reversed decree regarding patent No. 372,375
  5. Final decree entered dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991
  6. Appeal from that portion of decree

Evidence in the record

Physical
  • Bale ties described in patents
  • Wire clasps of various designs
Documentary
  • Letters patent No. 282,991
  • Letters patent No. 372,375
  • Letters patent No. 242,655
  • Smith patent No. 159,463
  • Lowber English patent of 1868
  • Trowbridge patent of 1869
  • Knipseheer patent of 1878
  • Griswold patent of March 1883
Challenged
  • Evidence type: Patent claims 1 and 2 of No. 282,991 · Challenge basis: Anticipation by prior art, lack of patentable novelty · Trial court ruling: excluded (invalidated) · Reasoning: Anticipated by Smith patent and lacking invention · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed

Objects of relevance

Adjustable bale ties made of wireWire clasps with V-shaped anglesRound wire versus flat iron materials

Authorities

Cited authorities (2)

62 Fed. 119
citedprecedent
Circuit court decision entering interlocutory injunction on patent claims
15 C. C. A. 161, 67 Fed. 1017
citedprecedent
Previous Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing decree regarding patent No. 372,375

Statutes

  • Patent laws governing validity and infringement

Standards & doctrines

  • De novo review for patent validity
  • Anticipation doctrine in patent law
  • Obviousness standard for patentability

Legal principles applied

  • Patent claims must show invention beyond mere mechanical substitution
  • Prior art that discloses all elements of a claim anticipates it
Index terms58
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
Circuit court decree dismissing bill as to patent No. 282,991
Appealed from
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York
Context
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of the circuit court, holding that claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 282,991 were invalid due to anticipation and lack of patentable novelty.
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Action type
dismissed
Target
Bill in equity for infringement of patent No. 282,991
Appealed from
Circuit court
Context
The circuit court dismissed the bill as to patent No. 282,991, which was affirmed on appeal.
Scope
full
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Townsend
Courts