RPC:D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144 (1983)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


On October 15, 1981, the D.L. Auld Company (Auld) sued Chroma Graphics Corp. (Chroma)


high as the appellate court, federal circuit court. The patent claims are drawn to a method of forming foil-backed inserts in the form of cast decorative emblems

(1) Whether issues of material fact were present, rendering issuance of summary judgment improper.

(2) Whether absence of an oral hearing before issuance of the original order rendered that order invalid in this case.

A summary judgment may not issue when material issues of fact requiring trial to resolve are present


The judgment of the District Court, acting through the magistrate, is affirmed in all respects.


points of note

Various indicia of intent to sell preclude any serious possiblity [sic] that these efforts were merely experimental. prices, salespeople,delivery routes

If Auld produced an emblem by the method of the invention and offered that emblem for sale before the critical date, the right to a patent on the method must be declared forfeited

The plastic flows to the edge of the sheet without overflowing; its surface tension causing it to stop at the sheet's edge to form a curved upper surface

Waugh testified that sample emblems submitted to prospective customers before the critical date were made in the laboratory following each of the steps set forth in Claim 1 of the patent in suit. He further said that the claimed method was not followed on some samples and a “postforming” operation was required on those particular emblems because they curled

Auld admits that emblems were made between 1969 and 1972 and that at least one was supplied, with prices quoted, to International Crest in “late 1972-early 1973.” It says, however, that those emblems were made by a “laboratory” method;

Labeling the method employed in making the sample for International Crest as a “laboratory” method raises no material fact issue. The method was that of Claim 1 and was successfully performed to produce an emblem offered for sale, or resale, by International Crest. That is all the law requires.

Auld's present argument is that (1) failure of the magistrate to follow Local Rule 12(c) requires reversal of the judgment and remand for trial of the case on the merits, and (2) the hearing granted on Auld's motion unfairly required Auld to bear a burden of trying to get the magistrate to change his mind; whereas, the burden of persuasion in a hearing on the motion for summary judgment would have rested on Chroma.