Court Opinion

ID: 9445281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:24:34.82642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:11.882340
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Chief Judge
(concurring).
As I agree that infringement of the claims in suit was not established, I concur that the cause must be reversed and remanded. However, I think we should have discussed and decided the question of the validity of the claims in suit.
In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Inter-chemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, at page 330, 65 S.Ct. 1143, at page 1145, 89 L. *649Ed. 1644, the Court said: “There has been a tendency among the lower federal courts in infringement suits to dispose of them where possible on the ground of non-infringement without going into the question of validity of the patent. [Citing cases.] It has come to be recognized, however, that of the two questions, validity has the greater public importance [citing case], and the District Court in this case followed what will usually be the better practice by inquiring fully into the validity of this patent.”
In the case at bar the District Court upheld the validity of the claims in suit. That question was squarely raised on this appeal. I recognize there is some difference of opinion in the circuits as to the interpretation to be given to the admonition of the Supreme Court in the Sinclair case. The Sixth Circuit interprets it as a direction always to decide the issue of validity. Pennington Engineering Co. v. Spicer Mfg. Co., 165 F. 2d 59, 61.
In Powder Power Tool Corp. v. Powder Actuated Tool Co., 7 Cir., 230 F.2d 409, 415, this Court said: “In spite of our determination of non-infringement We follow the ‘better practice’ and turn now to the question of the validity of the claims.”
There is, of course, some justification for other courts to hold that where there is non-infringement and the claims of the patent are not clearly invalid on their face, that it is, in effect, deciding a moot question to consider the question of validity. See Harries v. Air King Products Co., 2 Cir., 183 F.2d 158, 162; Patent Scaffolding Co. v. Up-Right, Inc., 9 Cir., 194 F.2d 457.
In the case at bar we have the situation where one judge, in dissenting, states that he would affirm the judgment of the District Court. That necessarily means that he thinks the claims in suit are valid. I likewise am of the opinion that the claims in suit are valid. Under such circumstances I think the question of validity should have been discussed and decided in the main opinion.