Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560 (1949)

Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co.

Argued November 10, 1948
Decided January 3, 1949 *
335 U.S. 560

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. All of the claims of Jungersen Patent No. 2, 118,468, for a "method of casting articles of intricate design and a product thereof," held invalid for want of invention. Pp. 561-568.

2. An examination of the prior art as it existed at the time of this alleged invention reveals that every step in the Jungersen method was anticipated, and it appears that Jungersen’s combination of these steps was, in its essential features, also well known in the art. Pp. 563-564.

3. Where centrifugal force was common as a means of introducing molten metal into a secondary mould, its use in an intermediate step to force molten wax into a primary mould was not an exemplification of inventive genius such as is necessary to render a patent valid. Pp. 564-567.

4. It is not sufficient to say that jewelry casting is a separate and distinct art where the patent is not restricted to the casting of jewelry and the prior improvements in the art of casting were so obviously applicable to the casting of jewelry that the patentee was bound by knowledge of them. P. 567.

5. Where invention is plainly lacking, the fact that a process has enjoyed considerable commercial success does not render a patent on it valid. Pp. 567-568.

163 F.2d 312, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

166 F.2d 807, affirmed.

Nos. 7 and 8. In a suit for a declaratory judgment that a patent was invalid and not infringed, defendant counterclaimed, alleging infringement and seeking an injunction. The District Court held certain claims valid but not infringed, and certain other claims invalid. 65 F.Supp. 652. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 163 F.2d 312. This Court denied petitions of both parties for certiorari, 332 U.S. 851-852, but, after a conflicting decision in another circuit in No. 48, vacated those orders and granted certiorari. 334 U.S. 835. No. 7 affirmed, and No. 8 reversed, p. 568.

No. 48. In a suit for damages, profits, and injunctive relief for alleged infringement of a patent, the District Court held all claims of the patent invalid. 69 F.Supp. 922. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 166 F.2d 807. This Court granted certiorari. 334 U.S. 835. Affirmed, p. 568.