Overview
Case summary
This is a patent infringement case involving Joshua Pusey's patent No. 483,166 for a friction-match device designed to be carried in the pocket. The Diamond Match Company sued Schenck et al. for infringement. The trial court found the patent valid and infringed. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that although the invention was of low order, it was sufficient to support the patent as it was new, cheap, convenient, and supplied a distinctly felt want. The court also found infringement, noting defendants' device was essentially identical to plaintiffs' except for minor formal differences, and rejected the defense of anticipation based on prior experiments by the Farnhams, which were deemed insufficient to prove anticipation.
Abstract
In this patent infringement case, the trial court found the patent for a pocket-carried friction-match device valid and infringed, a ruling affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held the invention, though of low order, sufficient for patentability due to its novelty, low cost, convenience, and fulfillment of a market need. Infringement was established as the defendant's device was essentially identical except for minor formal differences, and prior experiments failed to prove anticipation.
Opinion of the court
opinionBUTLER, District Judgejoined by ACHESON, Circuit Judge, WALES, District Judge
- Patent shows sufficient invention despite low order
- Device was new, cheap, convenient, and supplied a want
- Defendants' device infringes with only slight formal differences
- Anticipation defense by Farnhams not proved
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Procedural posture
- Defense of lack of patentable novelty
- Defense of anticipation by prior art (Farnhams)
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
Not explicitly stated, but appears to be de novo review of patent validity
Invention, though of low order, was sufficient as device was new, cheap, convenient, and supplied a distinctly felt want
Issue preserved for review
Not explicitly stated
Defendants' device is undistinguishable from plaintiffs' except in slight unimportant formal differences apparently introduced to avoid infringement
Issue preserved for review
Not explicitly stated
Defense not proved; Farnhams' experiments were occasional, tentative, for personal temporary wants, never applied to public use, and almost forgotten
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court erred in finding patent valid and infringed — evidentiary · no error found
- Trial court erred in rejecting anticipation defense based on Farnhams' experiments — evidentiary · no error found
Standards of review
- Patent validity and infringement — de novo Court reviews patent validity and infringement determinations based on record
Timeline
Joshua Pusey issued letters patent No. 483,166 for a friction-match device designed to be carried in the pocket
Circuit court sustains patent, finds infringement, and enters decree for plaintiff (71 Fed. 521)
Outcome: Decree for plaintiff
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirms trial court decree
Outcome: Affirmed
Diamond Match Company files suit in Circuit Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Schenck et al. for patent infringement
Facts & evidence
Key facts
3 facts- Plaintiff Diamond Match Company sued defendants for infringement of Joshua Pusey's patent No. 483,166 for a friction-match device designed to be carried in the pocket
- Trial court found patent valid and infringed, entering decree for plaintiff
- Defendants appealed, arguing lack of patentable novelty and anticipation by prior experiments
Procedural history
3 steps- Suit filed in Circuit Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- Trial court sustained patent and found infringement (71 Fed. 521)
- Defendants appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Evidence in the record
- Defendants' device compared to plaintiffs' patent device
- No sample of Farnhams' device exhibited
- Expert testimony from defendants' experts given less weight than defendants' initial conduct
- Letters patent No. 483,166
- Manufacturers' recognition of device's usefulness
- Defendants' initial efforts to obtain privilege to make device
- Evidence type: Prior experiments by Farnhams · Challenge basis: Anticipation defense · Trial court ruling: excluded · Reasoning: Experiments were occasional, tentative, for personal temporary wants, never applied to public use · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (1)
Statutes
- Letters patent No. 483,166
Standards & doctrines
- Patent law standards for novelty and invention
Legal principles applied
- Invention must be new and supply a want to be patentable
- Anticipation requires proof of prior public use or application