Opinion ID: 377935
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 The patent in suit, like most patents, discloses a proposed solution for a problem. When colored fishing lines are used, to enable the fisherman to see them above water, the lines are thought to be visible underwater to the fish. 2 When transparent lines are used, to limit visibility to fish, the fisherman can't see the lines resulting in tangled lines when several are used from one boat. 3 The solution proposed by Ed Keller, DuPont's employee, was a fishing line containing fluorescent dye. The dye would be activated, i.e., the line would glow, in response to the ultraviolet component of daylight, making it visible above water. At the same time, because water would absorb the dye-activating ultraviolet component of daylight, the line would be relatively invisible below the water. Thus one line would have the characteristics of high visibility above water and low visibility below water. Keller filed a U.S. patent application on January 2, 1962. DuPont introduced its fluorescent dyed line to the marketplace in August, 1962. The DuPont patent issued on November 13, 1962 3 to DuPont, Keller's assignee. 4 In November 1962, Berkley began making and selling a fluorescent fishing line, but ceased in 1963 when DuPont gave notice of infringement. Berkley's subsequent efforts to produce a High Visibility line that would not infringe were unsuccessful, its use of anthanilic acid producing a line half as bright as DuPont's. In December 1974, after unproductive licensing discussions with DuPont, Berkley again began making and selling a fluorescent fishing line. 5 On August 1, 1975, DuPont sued Berkley for willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 of the DuPont patent. Berkley denied infringement throughout a three-year discovery period, asserting that its line contained an optical brightener in place of fluorescent dye. Two weeks before trial, Berkley admitted that claims 2, 5 and 6, if valid, were infringed by its product. DuPont thereupon deleted claims 1 and 8 from its charge of infringement. 6 For its defense, Berkley alleged (1) that the DuPont patent was invalid for lack of utility, novelty and nonobviousness, and (2) that the patent was rendered invalid by DuPont's fraudulent conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 7 For its counterclaim, Berkley alleged that DuPont violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by procuring the patent through fraud and by attempting to enforce the patent with knowledge of its invalidity. 4 8 Over Berkley's objection, the trial court ordered a bifurcated trial, the first part to include the allegations that DuPont obtained the patent by fraud and enforced it believing it invalid. The second part, on the remaining elements of the antitrust claim, would be held if the jury found for Berkley on fraud or enforcement. 9 Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a general verdict for Berkley on DuPont's infringement claim. The jury answered these, and only these, special interrogatories: 5 10 Q: Did plaintiff obtain the . . . (DuPont) patent from the patent office by fraud? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Did plaintiff assert its patent against Berkley knowing that it was invalid? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Did you find for defendant solely because the patent was obvious? 15 A: No. 16 The court entered judgment, holding the DuPont patent invalid and dismissing the complaint and counterclaim. Both parties filed, and the court denied, motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.