Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Co.

Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Pats. Dev. Co., 283 U.S. 420 (1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-05-18
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court. The Circuit Court of Appeals held the patent valid and infringed. 38 F. (2d) 62. In our opinion delivered *421 March 9, 1931, we found it unnecessary to determine the validity of the patent, because we held that the bill should be dismissed on the ground that the owner of a patent may not limit its use so as to require that unpatented materials employed in practicing the invention shall be purchased only from the licensor, ante, p. 27.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
28 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Validity A combination patent is invalid for want of patentable invention where each element of the combination—the refrigerant, the material to be refrigerated, and the container—performs its function in a known way, and it required no invention to arrange those known elements so that the insulated refrigerant surrounds the refrigerated article and thereby achieves an added insulating effect. 283 U.S. at 421-423
  2. Patent Law — Anticipation A patent is invalid as anticipated where prior art structures disclose the same structural device of surrounding the refrigerant with the article to be refrigerated; a difference in the prior art—such as leaving part of the refrigerant exposed to permit removal of water—is unimportant where the refrigerant employed sublimes directly into a dry gas and therefore need not be made accessible, so that the refrigerant may be fully surrounded. 283 U.S. at 423
CARBICE CORP.v. AM. PATENTS CO.,283 U.S. 420(1931)
51 S.Ct. 496
CARBICE CORPORATION OF AMERICAv. AMERICAN PATENTS DEVELOPMENT CO. ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 54.
Reargued April 27, 1931.
Decided May 18, 1931.
Patent No. 1,595,426, for a refrigerating transportation package, consisting of an outer, insulating container, with the food substance to be refrigerated (e.g. ice cream) so packed therein as to surround a quantity of solid carbon dioxide in its separate insulating container and thus to act, with the evolved gaseous dioxide, as a protection for the solid dioxide against exterior heat, the gas also serving to displace air from the food and refrigerate it, —heldvoid for want of novelty and invention.
REHEARING of the cause reportedante, p. 27, limited to the
validity of the patent.
Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., for petitioner.Mr. Charles Neavefor respondents.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held the patent valid and infringed.38 F.2d 62. In our opinion deliveredPage 421March 9, 1931, we found it unnecessary to determine the validity of the patent, because we held that the bill should be dismissed on the ground that the owner of a patent may not limit its use so as to require that unpatented materials employed in practicing the invention shall be purchased only from the licensor,ante, p. 27. On March 16, 1931, the Carbice Corporation petitioned that the Court rule also on the validity of the patent. The reason assigned was the inauguration by the Dry Ice Corporation of a campaign of intimidation against customers of the Carbice Corporation by releasing to the public press a statement that the validity of the patent as sustained by the Court of Appeals had not been disturbed; that the true patent monopoly had in no way been limited by this Court; that we had indicated that the proper way to enforce the patent monopoly is by directly suing those who use solid carbon dioxide in the patent combination without a license; and that the Dry Ice Corporation would immediately bring such a suit. A re-argument, limited to the question of the validity of the patent, was ordered. The respondents petitioned for a rehearing on the issue determined in our former opinion. The latter petition was denied.

The refrigerating transportation package which is specified and claimed in the patent in suit is described in the earlier opinion,ante, p. 27. The alleged invention is for the locational arrangement of materials within a container. Whether a locational arrangement within a structure can ever be patented as a manufacture need not be determined. Nor need we consider whether the patent, as issued, contained a sufficient disclosure of the alleged invention. For the combination in suit lacks patentable invention and novelty. Each of the elements — refrigerant, material to be refrigerated, and container — performs its function in a known way. Long prior to the date of the claimed invention, it was known that solid carbon dioxide, which has a temperature of 110Page 422degrees below zero, is a refrigerant; that when it "melts." it passes directly into a dry gas heavier than air, of like low temperature, which may serve as a refrigerant until its temperature rises to that of the outside air. It was known also that a frozen article — be it ice cream or solid carbon dioxide — will remain frozen longer if insulated; and that paper is an insulator. It was not invention to conclude that a cake of the solid dioxide wrapped in paper would remain solid longer if also surrounded by ice cream, than if placed in more immediate proximity to the walls of the container and thus to the outer air; or to conclude that the gas, being heavier than air would, as generated, drive the air out of the container, and thus serve as an additional insulator. CompareHollisterv.BenedictBurnham Mfg. Co.,113 U.S. 59,72-73;Dreyfusv.Searle,124 U.S. 60,63;Wilsonv.Janes, 3 Blatch. 227.

Moreover, the structural device of surrounding the refrigerant by the article to be refrigerated had been shown in the Mosler and Ladewig refrigerating butterbox, United States Patent No. 236,906, issued January 25, 1881; and in Rumpel's portable lunch box, United States Patent No. 1,130,932, issued March 9, 1915. It is true that in these prior art structures the refrigerant employed was not completely surrounded by the refrigerated materials, as the top or bottom of the ice container was usually left exposed. This was done to permit access to the ice chamber for the purpose of removing water. Since carbon dioxide sublimes directly into a dry gas, such access obviously need not be provided, and the refrigerant may be surrounded on all four sides. This difference is unimportant. These references suffice to render the patent invalid also because of anticipation without considering the additional defense of prior use.Page 423