Opinion ID: 377935
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Cohantic Line

Text: 47 A spool of Cohantic line was allegedly discovered by Berkley in a fishing line morgue of the Cortland Line Company in New York. Placed under a strong artificial ultraviolet light, the line gave off a faint glow, about 3% of that of DuPont's patented line. The glow was a little more in portions of the spool that had been covered for years by a rubber band and thus protected from light and oxidation. The Cohantic line did not glow in sunlight. 48 Berkley's expert Stearns compared the glow of the Cohantic line to the inherent glow of a piece of undyed, relatively stiff, fishing leader of unknown composition. Finding a difference in spectra and intensity, Stearns concluded that the glow in the Cohantic line was caused by the presence of a brightener, by which he apparently meant a fluorescent dye. 49 DuPont's expert Jenkins found that the glow spectra of the Cohantic line and the inherent glow of undyed line made of the same nylon were substantially identical. 50 DuPont's request that we find fluorescent dye absent from the Cohantic line, and Berkley's request that we find it present, are inappropriate at this stage. 22 The testimony is equivocal. Neither side conducted scientific tests for the presence of fluorescent dye, though DuPont says the amount, if any, would be too minuscule for scientific testing. That Stearns' comparison line was not of the same nylon, while Jenkins' was, that many materials (assertedly including fingernails), inherently fluoresce under strong artificial ultraviolet light, and that a protected line portion glowed more than an unprotected portion, were matters for the jury, in its evaluation of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and their testimony. 51 The trial court correctly submitted the evidence of the Cohantic line to the jury. The absence of indication that the jury found the patent invalid because of the Cohantic line, the gaps and conflicts in the Cohantic line evidence, and the prejudicial errors in submission of the non-utility and McCoy line matters, all preclude a sustaining here of the jury's invalidity verdict on the basis of the Cohantic line evidence.