Patent infringement action. Invention at issue was a multiple position chair. At trial, the allegedly infringing party proved that models made in accordance with five embodiments disclosed in the patent failed to operate as stated in the patent, because none solved the problem of actuating the leg rest linkage. Id. at 522. Additionally, the allegedly infringing party proved that the addition of a friction device and the addition of substitute linkages would not make any of the devices operative. Id. The patentee’s expert speculated as to how the chairs could be modified to become operative, but this testimony was only in general terms. Id. Additionally, there was no evidence that the chairs disclosed in the patent had ever been made or sold commercially by the patentee, and the patentee had not granted any licenses under the patent.
The district court found the patent to be invalid for lack of utility, based on an inoperative disclosure. This holding was affirmed in a short opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lorenz v. General Steel Products Co., 337 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1964).
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Saturday 04 of October, 2008 19:09:01 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Saturday 04 of October, 2008 19:09:01 GMT by Unknown