Overview
Case summary
This is a patent infringement case where William Keuffel sued the Lufkin Rule Company for allegedly infringing his patent No. 338,602 for an improvement in tape-measure cases. Keuffel claimed infringement only of the third claim, which involved a crank handle pivoted on a hinged plate arranged to allow unlocking by pressure at the back. The defendant denied validity, citing prior art, and claimed its tape measures were made under a later patent (No. 498,104). The court found the third claim valid when limited to the specific construction allowing pressure at the back to unlock the crank. However, the court found no infringement because the defendant's device had a swiveled rather than pivoted crank handle, and the grant of a subsequent patent to the defendant created a presumption of noninfringement that was not overcome. The bill was dismissed.
Abstract
Plaintiff sued defendant for infringing the third claim of a patent covering an improvement in tape-measure cases involving a crank handle pivoted on a hinged plate unlocked by back pressure. Defendant denied validity based on prior art and asserted its product was made under a later patent. Court upheld the third claim's validity when limited to the specific construction but found no infringement due to differences in the crank handle mechanism and a presumption from the defendant's subsequent patent, dismissing the bill.
Opinion of the court
opinionRICKS, District Judge
- Third claim of patent valid when limited to specific construction allowing pressure at back to unlock crank
- Defendant's device differs in having swiveled rather than pivoted crank handle
- Grant of subsequent patent to defendant creates presumption of noninfringement
- Presumption not overcome by evidence
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Suit filed in Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.
Procedural posture
- Validity of patent No. 338,602
- Infringement of third claim
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Court finds third claim valid when limited to specific construction
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Court finds no infringement due to differences in construction and presumption from subsequent patent grant
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Patent validity and infringement — de novo Patent cases typically reviewed de novo on issues of claim construction and infringement
Timeline
Letters patent No. 338,602 issued to William Keuffel for improvement in tape-measure cases
Patent forms basis of infringement claim
Letters patent No. 498,104 issued to F. Back, later owned by defendant
Defendant claims tape measures made according to this patent
Suit in equity filed by Keuffel against Lufkin Rule Company for patent infringement
Initiates the legal proceedings
Court issues opinion construing patent, finding third claim valid but not infringed, and dismissing bill
Outcome: Bill dismissed
Final disposition of the case
Facts & evidence
Key facts
6 facts- Complainant William Keuffel holds letters patent No. 338,602 issued March 23, 1886 for improvement in tape-measure cases
- Defendant Lufkin Rule Company manufactures and sells tape measures allegedly infringing the patent
- Defendant denies validity, claims prior art including five U.S. patents and two English patents
- Defendant claims ownership of U.S. letters patent No. 498,104 dated May 23, 1893 granted to F. Back
- Complainant claims infringement only of third claim of his patent
- Stipulation that defendant made and sold tape measures like exhibit since date of patent in suit
Procedural history
1 steps- Bill filed by complainant to establish patent validity and recover damages for infringement
Evidence in the record
- Stipulation that defendant made and sold tape measures like exhibit since patent date
- Tape-measure cases as exhibits
- Letters patent No. 338,602
- Letters patent No. 498,104
- English patents No. 11,962 of 1847 and No. 5,382 of 1886
- Five other U.S. patents cited as prior art
- Expert name: Defendant's expert · Expertise: Patent analysis · Opinion: Defendant's exhibit does not contain equivalent for hinged plate or central tube
Objects of relevance
Policy considerations
- Presumption of patentable difference from grant of subsequent patent
Authorities
Statutes
- U.S. patent laws governing validity and infringement
Standards & doctrines
- Presumption of patentable difference from subsequent patent grant
- Claim limitation doctrine
Legal principles applied
- Presumption that patent office considered prior patents when granting subsequent patent
- Claim limitation to avoid prior art
Notable quotes
“The grant of letters patent to the defendant was virtually a decision by the patent office that there was a substantial difference between the two inventions.”RICKS, District Judge — Discussing presumption of noninfringement from subsequent patent grantEstablishes legal presumption in patent cases