Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Faulkner v. Gibbs

Faulkner v. Gibbs, 338 U.S. 267 (1949)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-11-14
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 170 F. 2d 34 (1948). Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Faulkner v. Gibbs. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
44 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Infringement Concurrent findings of the district court and the court of appeals that a patent is valid and infringed will not be disturbed on certiorari where the petitioner fails to show that the findings are clearly erroneous. 338 U.S. at 267-268
  2. Patent Law — Anticipation A patent sustained on the basis of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element is not governed by the rule invalidating a patent whose claim language is too broad at the precise point of novelty. 338 U.S. at 268
  3. Patent Law — Infringement A modification of an accused device that is insubstantial does not place the accused device outside the scope of the patent. 338 U.S. at 268
FAULKNERv. GIBBS,338 U.S. 267(1949)
70 S.Ct. 25
FAULKNERv. GIBBS.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 19.
Argued October 12, 1949.
Decided November 7, 1949.
The concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that respondent's Patent No. 1,906,260 was valid and infringed by petitioner, are not shown to be clearly erroneous, and the judgment below is affirmed.Halliburton Oil Well CementingCo. v.Walker,329 U.S. 1, distinguished. Pp. 267-268.170 F.2d 34, affirmed.
In a suit brought by respondent against petitioner for
infringement of a patent, the District Court held the
patent valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
170 F.2d 34. This Court granted certiorari.
336 U.S. 935.Affirmed, p. 268.
Robert W. FulwiderandJames P. Burnsargued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief wasHaroldW. Mattingly.Herbert A. Huebnerargued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed,170 F.2d 34(1948). Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict withHalliburton Oil Well CementingCo. v.Walker,329 U.S. 1(1946), we granted certiorari.

The record, briefs and arguments of counsel lead us to the view thatHalliburton, supra, is inapposite. We therePage 268held the patent invalid because its language was too broad at the precise point of novelty. In the instant case, the patent has been sustained because of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element.

After the suit in this cause was initiated in the District Court, petitioner modified his device. The courts below held that this modification was insubstantial and did not place petitioner outside the scope of respondent's patent.

We will not disturb the concurrent findings upon the issues presented to us in the petition for certiorari. We are not persuaded that the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. The judgment isAffirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 269