#Simply done paper cup design 80 trial#

and lack of invention over prior art under В§ 103.Дefendants contend that the evidence adduced at the trial fully establishes that the Merta machine embodying the invention of the patent in suit was in public *129 use by the inventor, Merta, more than one year before the patent application was filed, hence the statutory bar of 35 U.S.C. The claims charged to be infringed by defendants' machines, the X-56 and V-59 relate to three groups of claims, directed to three different features of the cup making machine (1) the paper feed mechanism, (2) the gripper device for holding the paper on the mandrel, and, (3) the rimmer and blunter mechanism which rolls a bead on the top of the cup.Дefendants have denied infringement as to some of the claims and in addition assert as an affirmative defense, the invalidity of the patent by reason of (a) prior public use in the United States more than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent under В§ 102(b) of Title 35 U.S.C., and (b) invalidity of each of the claims charged to be infringed as anticipated by patents granted on applications filed in the United States before the invention by the patentee G. As the introductory paragraph of the Merta patent states, the invention is related to 'improvements in a cup-making machine and more particularly to machines for making sanitary conical cups from paper for use as drinking receptacles, ice cream cups, or the like, * * *.' The machine of the patent in suit was not a pioneer paper cup machine but follows other rotary paper cup machine patents of a similar type including Barbieri No. It then returns to the first station where it grips another blank and repeats the process. Following the blunting and beading of the rim of the cup the mandrel is moved to the final station where the cup is discharged from the mandrel into a stacking trough or tube. At this station additional die members are brought around the cup on the mandrel, the bottom end of the cup is slightly blunted to effectuate a seal and the top of the cup is rolled outwardly and downwardly into a bead. While a cup is being formed around the conical mandrel and is being rotated against pressing means to wind the blank thereon and press the glue joint, the mandrel is moved to a station on the machine where an additional operation is performed. The mandrel is equipped with a gripper which grabs a portion of the blank to hold it on the mandrel. After the paper enters the machine, and a knife has severed a blank of the correct size and shape to form a conical drinking cup and glue has been applied to one edge of the blank, the blank proceeds to the mandrel through suitable guidemeans which presents the blank to the mandrel at the first station. The paper cups are formed on mandrels which are conical in shape and rotatable. The patent discloses a conical cup-making machine designed for automatically converting paper supplied in strip form into a conical paper cup having a glued joint.

Merta, June 8, 1943, on an application filed August 30, 1940, and plaintiff is owner of said patent by assignment. В§ 1332(a) in that the parties are citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 and also by В§ 1338(b) of Title 28 U.S.C. This cause of action arises under common law, and jurisdiction is conferred by Title 28 U.S.C. In Count 2 of the amended complaint, plaintiff also seeks an accounting and damages and an injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing or selling machines derived from drawings of plaintiff's conical paper cup forming machines. В§ 281, and jurisdiction is conferred by Title 28 U.S.C. Jurisdiction of the cause of action arises under Title 35 U.S.C. Since the patent in *128 suit has expired no injunctive relief is sought in this count. In Count 1 of the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks an accounting of the profits made by defendants as a result of the alleged infringement of Patent No. This is an action in two counts (1) for patent infringement, and, (2) for unfair competition.

Williams, Chicago, Ill., Elwin Andrus, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.

Simply done paper cup design 80