Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Helbush v. Finkle
170 F.2d 41
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1948-10-07
- Topic
- general
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge. In an action by appellants (Herman H. Helbush and Monogram Manufacturing Company) against appellees (Donald H. Finkle and Wedgelock Company), appellees were charged with infringing claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 2,364,408 and claim 11 of patent No. 2,365,787, of which patents Helbush was the owner and Monogram Manufacturing Company was a licensee. Defenses pleaded by appellees were that the claims were invalid for lack of novelty and lack of invention, and that, if valid, they were not infringed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Helbush v. Finkle. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 13 opinions
HELBUSH v. FINKLE,170 F.2d 41(9th Cir. 1948)
HELBUSH et al. v. FINKLE et al.
No. 11761.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 7, 1948.
Action by Herman H. Helbush and Monogram Manufacturing Company, a corporation, against Donald H. Finkle and Wedgelock Company, a corporation, for infringementPage 42of patents. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded with directions.
Lyon Lyon and Frederick W. Lyon, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Harris, Kiech, Foster Harris, Ward D. Foster and Warren L. Kern, all of Los Angeles, Cal., amicis curiae.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Usually, where the question of validity is raised in a patent infringement case, the District Court should determine that question before determining the question of infringement.1That course should have been followed in this case.
We do not hold that the question of validity must be determined in every patent infringement case in which it is raised. There may be cases in which non-infringement is so apparent as to make it unncessary to determine the question of validity.2This, however, is not such a case.
The question of validity of the claims here involved cannot properly be determined on this appeal.3Such a determination would necessitate findings on questions on which the District Court has made no findings — the question of novelty and the question of invention, both of which are questions of fact.4Such findings should be made by the District Court,5not by this court.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to determine the question of validity of the claims here involved, determine the question of their infringement, make findings of fact and state conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thereupon enter such judgment as may be proper.
GARRECHT, Circuit Judge, participated in the hearing of this case, but died before an opinion was prepared.Page 43
- Sinclair Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.,325 U.S. 327, 65 S.Ct. 1143, 89 L.Ed. 1644; Measurements Corp. v. Ferris Instrument Corp., 3 Cir.,159 F.2d 590; Oswego Falls Corp. v. American Seal-Kap Corp., D.C.E.D.N.Y.,65 F. Supp. 338; Sunlite Mfg. Co. v. Clarvan Corp., D.C.E.D.Wis.,73 F. Supp. 938. ↩
- Vulcan Corp. v. International Shoe Machine Corp., D.C.Mass.,68 F. Supp. 990, affirmed in 1 Cir.,158 F.2d 520; Kennametal, Inc. v. American Cutting Alloys, D.C.Del.,77 F. Supp. 136. ↩
- Cf. Pennington Engineering Co. v. Spicer Mfg. Corp., 6 Cir.,165 F.2d 59. ↩
- Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co., 9 Cir.,151 F.2d 91; Maulsby v. Conzevoy, 9 Cir.,161 F.2d 165; Refrigeration Engineering v. York Corp., 9 Cir.,168 F.2d 896. ↩
- Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. ↩