Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30 (1929)

U.S. Supreme Court, (October 14, 1929)

Docket number: 4, 14

/us/280/30/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/sanitary-refrigerator-v-winters-20026376
Id. vLex: VLEX-20026376

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis, Appellants, v. the Dow Chemical Company, Appellee. the Dow Chemical Company, Appellant, v. Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis, Appellees., 379 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1967)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - the Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a New York Corporation, Appellant, v. Computervision Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Appellee., 680 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc., Et Al., Defendants, Appellees. Aro Manufacturing Co., Inc., Et Al., Defendants, Appellants, v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., Plaintiff, Appellee., 312 F.2d 52 (1st Cir. 1963)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Interdent Corporation Et Al. v. the United States., 531 F.2d 547 (Fed. Cir. 1976)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Ethyl Corporation v. Borden, Inc., Appellant., 427 F.2d 206 (3rd Cir. 1970)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Mead Digital Systems, Inc.; Mead Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. A.B. Dick Company and Gould, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees., 723 F.2d 455 (6th Cir. 1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Townsend Engineering Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hitec Co., Ltd., Defendant-Appellee., 829 F.2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Engelhard Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Research Instrumental Corporation, Appellee., 324 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1963)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Marino Systems, Inc., Appellant, v. J. Cowhey & Sons, Inc., Appellee., 631 F.2d 313 (4th Cir. 1980)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO. v. WINTERS, 280 U.S. 30 (1929)

[Page 280 U.S. 30, 34]

closed and had only a narrow range of equivalency-and not agreeing with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sanitary case, which meanwhile had been handed down-held that they were not infringed by the Dent latch; and affirmed 'the decree of the District Court, dismissing the bill because of noninfringement.' 28 F.(2d) 583, 586.

There being a conflict of opinion between the two Circuit Courts of Appeals on the question of infringement, writs of certiorari were thereafter granted in both cases. [Footnote 1]

[Page 280 U.S. 30, 38]

mounted on the door between its ends, one end of the lever being formed into an operating handle and the other into a keeper engaging arm, a second arm projecting from the handle portion of the lever a short distance from its pivot and at an angle to the first arm, said keeper being formed at its outer sides for engagement with the respective arms when the lever is in horizontal and vertical positions, respectively, as the door is closed, to automatically operate the lever so that it will engage under the keeper when the door is entirely closed, substantially as described.'

We insert here reproductions (on a reduced scale) of Figure 4 of the drawings which is a front elevation showing the door approaching closed position with the swinging lever in vertical relation to the door; Figure 5, a side elevation thereof; Figure 6, a front elevation showing the action on the swinging lever as the door approaches closed position after the lever has been in horizontal position; and Figure 1, a front elevation showing the latch in closed position and holding a door closed. These show the patented device in detail.

The operation of closing and latching the door is thus described in the specification: 'When the door is moved toward closing position with the lever vertically located, the cam side 13 of arm 12 strikes against the curved upper side 18 of head 17, causing the lever to be automatically swung toward the horizontal, and bringing the arm 9 into place so as to pass under the lower point of the keeper head so that it may engage at its outer side against the wedging cam side 20 of the head. It is apparent that by giving the end of handle 11 a downward movement, the door will be wedged tightly shut as the arm 9 moves upwardly and against the incline 20. ... If the lever has dropped to horizontal position while the door is open, the closure of the door and engagement of the lever with the keeper is accomplished by merely swinging the door shut, in which case, as shown in Figs. [Footnote 6]

[Page 280 U.S. 30, 43]

lever, and one alone of these changes cannot be substituted in the Winters and Crampton structure without the other, so as to make it operative, is plainly insufficient to avoid the infringement.

Nor is the infringement avoided, under the controlling weight of the undisputed facts, by any presumptive validity that may attach to the Schrader patent by reason of its issuance after the Winters and Crampton patent.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Sanitary case is affirmed; and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Dent case is reversed.

No. 4 affirmed. No. 14 reversed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 In the Sanitary Case the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed before the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Dent case had been handed down; and was then denied. 278 U.S. 599, 49 S. Ct. 8. But after the handing down of that opinion showing the conflict as to the question of infringement, was brought to our attention by a petition for rehearing, the certiorari was granted. 278 U.S. 587, 49 S. Ct. 17. However, the Refrigerator Co. did not challenge the correctness of the holding of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the five specific claims were valid; and the petition was based entirely on the conflict of opinion as to the question of infringement.

Footnote 2 See Note 1, supra.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access