Messing v. Quiltmaster Corporation

8 Citing cases

  1. Borden Company v. Clearfield Cheese Co.

    369 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1966)   Cited 13 times

    " This case differs from Montmarquet v. Johnson and Johnson, D.C., 82 F. Supp. 469, affirmed 179 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir.), for here, while invalidity was found on a motion for summary judgment, the court had the benefit there of the affidavit of an expert by way of explanation of the patent. The rule is explicitly stated in Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., D.C., 159 F. Supp. 181, "However, in order to determine patent validity upon this motion, `* * * the court must be certain that it does not need any expert testimony or other extrinsic evidence to explain or evaluate the prior art, or to explain the application of complicated patent descriptions to the subject matter of the patent so that by a mere comparison of the patent in suit with the prior art patents the court can comprehend the similarities or differences in the patents, invalidity for lack of invention being so clearly apparent on the face of the patent that no testimony could change that conclusion.'", quoting Glatt v. Sisco, supra, D.C., 136 F. Supp. 936, at page 937, citing Montmarquet v. Johnson and Johnson, supra, Baker v. Webb, D.C., 112 F. Supp. 394 and Chiplets, Inc. v. June Dairy Products Co., D.C., 89 F. Supp. 814. Additionally, no finding of fact can be a substitute for the standard "of invention which is the controlling factor.

  2. Refac International Ltd. v. IBM

    689 F. Supp. 422 (D.N.J. 1988)   Cited 4 times
    Stating that the best mode requirement applies "to what is essential for carrying out the invention, as well as to the forms of the invention itself."

    Rather, the burden is on the Court to ascertain whether it needs "expert testimony or other extrinsic evidence to explain . . . the application of complicated patent descriptions to the subject matter of the patent." Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., 159 F. Supp. 181, 184 (D.N.J. 1958). This Court holds that the interpretation of patent claims only requires an expert when the subject matter becomes sufficiently complex so that the Court does not feel competent to interpret what is before it. Obviously, in a case where the subject matter involves chemical, mathematical, physical, electrical processes or the like, the Court must be guided by one "skilled in the art" in order to determine whether the invention may be used or made from the patent specification itself.

  3. Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.

    558 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that third application could not claim priority date of first application because second application in chain of inventions did not make reference to first

    In any event, it is necessary that I decide on the basis of the record in this case whether summary judgment is appropriate. In Borden Co. v. Clearfield Cheese Co., 369 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1966), the Court of Appeals adopted the guideline set forth in Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., 159 F. Supp. 181 (D.N.J. 1958), for determining when a summary judgment on the question of patent validity is appropriate:.

  4. Sims v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

    444 F. Supp. 1277 (E.D. Pa. 1978)   Cited 5 times
    In R.W. Sims v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 1277, 1282 (1978), we held that under Pennsylvania law a suit for unfair competition can be brought only by a business rival of the defendant.

    Both the relative complexity of the Willard patent and of the relevant prior art and the far less developed record in our case make Allen-Bradley distinguishable. We clearly "need . . . expert testimony . . . to explain or evaluate the prior art [and] to explain the application of complicated patent descriptions to the subject matter of the patent" as well as for other inquiries, Borden Co. v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 369 F.2d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1966), quoting Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., 159 F. Supp. 181, 184 (D.N.J. 1958). Summary judgment is thus inappropriate on Count One.

  5. Allen-Bradley Company v. Air Reduction Company

    273 F. Supp. 930 (W.D. Pa. 1967)   Cited 10 times

    The following guidelines were stated: "The rule is explicitly stated in Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., D.C., 159 F. Supp. 181, 116 USPQ 378, 380. `However, in order to determine patent validity on this motion "* * * the court must be certain that it does not need any expert testimony or other extrinsic evidence to explain or evaluate the prior art, or to explain the application of complicated patent descriptions to the subject matter of the patent so that by a mere comparison of the patent in suit with the prior art patents the court can comprehend the similarities or differences in the patents, invalidity for lack of invention being so clearly apparent on the face of the patent that no testimony could change that conclusion"'". 369 F.2d 101.

  6. Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Sel-Rex Corp.

    253 F. Supp. 832 (D.N.J. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    It is unnecessary to the invalidation of a patent for want of invention over the prior art that a complete anticipation thereof be disclosed in a single prior patent. Messing v. Quilt-master Corporation, 159 F. Supp. 181 (D.N.J. 1958); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bulldog Electric Products Co., 106 F. Supp. 819 (N.D.W.Va. 1952), affirmed 206 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 909, 74 S.Ct. 240, 98 L.Ed. 406 (1953). The same is true where a prior publication is relied upon.

  7. I.C.E. Corporation v. Amrco Steel Corporation

    250 F. Supp. 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    Even were I to assume arguendo that the microfilm in issue constitutes a "printed publication", however, I am not sufficiently skilled in the art to certainly determine that the German patent application, either alone or when read with the Stresau patent, anticipates the Buck patent in litigation here. See Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States, 149 F.2d 130, at page 135, 2 Cir., 1945; Bridgeport Brass Co. v. Bostwick Laboratories, 181 F.2d 315, at pages 316-319, 2 Cir., 1950. Without the aid of "expert testimony or other extrinsic evidence * * *", Messing v. Quiltmaster Corp., 159 F. Supp. 181, at page 184, D.C.N.J. 1958, I cannot adequately interpret the claims in the Buck patent, those in the Stresau patent or the language in the German patent application, particularly in the face of defendants' contention, buttressed by an affidavit of John Timmers, ostensibly an experienced engineer in the field of research and development of spiral welded pipe, that certain portions of the microfilmed application are vague or ambiguous. Moreover, defendants have raised a factual issue, which may become important in the context of the pleadings, concerning plaintiffs' ability to manufacture commercially acceptable and workable machines by the method in issue.

  8. Messing v. Quiltmaster Corporation

    162 F. Supp. 489 (D.N.J. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    In this patent infringement case, invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 1338(a), the first of the two patents relied upon by plaintiffs (No. 2,621,138, herein referred to as '138) has already been adjudicated invalid by this Court upon defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court's opinion upon that motion, filed February 21, 1958 and reported at 159 F. Supp. 181, will disclose the issues presented by the pleadings and the facts disclosed upon the motion. The defendant now moves for summary judgment of invalidity upon the remaining patent (No. 2,621,139, herein referred to as '139 or Messing '139), involved in this suit.