Court Opinion

ID: 9457662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:29:15.57738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:27.445836
License: Public Domain

CHRISTENSEN, District Judge
(dissenting) :
I concur with most of what has been stated in the prevailing opinion concerning burdens of proof and the substantive rules of patent law involved; but I must dissent from its application of the rules of summary judgment. It seems likely that the decision will prove more significant as a precedent in the latter aspect than in the former, for the substantive law involved is perceptively analyzed, and accurately stated in accordance with the prevailing view, while if the decision is widely followed with respect to the propriety of summary judgment the trials of numerous types of cases which heretofore have been thought to involve questions of fact not susceptible to summary disposition will be rendered unnecessary.
The prevailing opinion, before considering the substantive issues of priority and patentability, deals with two preliminary questions: the first as to the burden of proof in the trial de novo before the district court; the second being defined as follows: “Given that standard of review, can disposition, short of a full evidentiary hearing, by way of summary judgment ever be appropriate in a case in which the Board’s conclusion is to be overturned?” Agreeing with the statement of the first question and its answer, I suggest that the second should not be based upon abstract ultimates but should consider whether under the circumstances of this particular ease summary judgment could be granted without unacceptable violence to the governing concept and principle of summary judgment. In my opinion, in view of that concept and principle, the entry of summary judgment constituted error in light of the uncertain nature of the proof, varying inferences which could be drawn by reasonable minds, the absence of documentation on the critical question of when baffles were added, the presumptive correctness of the Patent Office action,1 Cody’s heavy burden of proof before the district court2 especially on a motion for summary judgment, the lack of a full exploration of the facts because summary judgment denied an opportunity to develop them fully at a trial de novo, and the limited office of summary judgment except where it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Without deciding that summary judgment on an appeal from the Board’s determination should never be granted it is believed that on the record before us the required “thorough conviction” could not be properly entertained as a matter of law and- without the determination of the court as a fact finder.
Fox v. Johnson & Wimsatt, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 211, 127 F.2d 729 (1942), on the basis of which the crucial problem of summary judgment is resolved in the prevailing opinion, is distinguishable from the case at bar. Nonetheless, it may epitomize my point of departure as it seems based upon two assumptions which do not represent the prevailing, and what I think is the better, view today: (1) that if both sides file motions for summary judgment each concedes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and in effect consents to *1288a waiver of trial; (2) that where there is no dispute as to circumstantial facts, a case can be decided on summary judgment even though different inferences on crucial matters might be drawn by reasonable minds from the established facts. Motion of both parties for summary judgment did not convert pre-trial proceedings into a trial nor waive the right to trial if the case could not otherwise be resolved summarily, for a party may concede that there is no issue of fact if his legal theory is accepted and yet maintain that there is genuine dispute as to material facts if the opponent’s theory is adopted. American Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. London & Edinburgh Ins. Co., 354 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1965). Summary judgment is precluded by conflicting inferences drawable by reasonable minds from undisputed material facts which if settled against the moving party would deny him a judgment. Equal Emp. Op. Com’n v. United Ass’n of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumb., etc., 427 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir. 1970); Columbus Services v. Preferred Building Maintenance, 398 F.2d 80 (6th Cir. 1968); Frey v. Frankel, 361 F.2d 437 (10th Cir. 1966); S. J. Groves & Sons Company v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 315 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1963). This is not an esoteric principle, but one that pervades the entire law with reference to the propriety of withdrawing issues from fact finders. Thus, a pleading must be considered as against a motion for summary disposition in the light most favorable to the pleader and with all reasonable inferences to be resolved in his favor; a motion for a directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding a verdict is confronted with similar intendments and in examining the sufficiency of evidence to support a judgment on appeal, appellate courts consider evidence and inferences that may fairly be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the fact finder. A motion for summary judgment presents issues of law, not of fact, and the purpose of Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., is to permit expeditious disposition of cases where no substantial issue of fact is presented for determination; it is not intended that litigants shall be deprived of their right to a full hearing before a fact finder free to draw reasonable inferences among conflicting ones if any material issue of fact is tendered. See Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. National Tank Company, 445 F.2d 922 (10th Cir. 1971). The confining of judgments within such limits seems to me to be an enhancement of the judicial process rather than its frustration.
I believe there were material issues of fact with reference to the vital questions of the time and sufficiency of reduction to practice which were adequate to preclude summary judgment had the decision of the Board been before the court without any presumption or intendment in its favor; under the rule that its decision should be accepted as controlling unless on trial de novo the court as fact finder entertains thorough conviction to the contrary, it seems inapproppriate and improper on the facts of this case to have resolved the questions on summary judgment.
No hard and fast rule as to the proof essential to show reduction to practice can be laid down, and this presents the principal difficulty in ruling on such matters by summary judgment. The decision is principally one of fact in light of the applicable principles of law. It has been said that “[T]he exact extent of testing necessary to effect a reduction to practice is a matter which must be determined by the circumstances of each particular case and the nature of the device involved.” St. Pierre v. Harvey, 233 F.2d 337, 43 C.C.P.A. 918 (1956).
My reading of the cases indicates that the Patent Office did not so misconceive the essential elements of a reduction to practice that its decision as to the law was clearly erroneous and thus reversible by summary judgment apart from any question of fact. The trial court’s memorandum perceptively analyzed the general requirements not inconsistently with the authorities; but the court ultimately tended to reduce the question to an overly *1289simple one of whether the Cody machine was demonstrated to cut grass at all, which question it dispositively answered in the affirmative. On the other hand, the Board of Patent Interferences emphasized the requirement of practical demonstration in terms of satisfactory operation. Confirming its decision on reconsideration, however, the Board rested its conclusion on the proposition that “ * * * just cutting grass, without regard for its effectiveness, is insufficient proof of the practical utility of the machine for its intended purpose under ordinary working conditions. Thus, Cody et al. did not sustain their burden of proof and did not prove actual reduction to practice of the invention in issue.”
Despite the variant expressions of the requirements, we think that neither the Board nor the court essentially misconceived the governing law — which, on the one hand, would render insufficient as reduction to practice a mere literal cutting of blades of grass, however few or insignificant and irrespective of any practical utility in relation to its intended purpose, and yet, on the other hand, recognizes there can be a reduction to practice by an embodiment which operates imperfectly or crudely as long as it demonstrates some substantial degree of practical utility for its intended purpose. It does not appear that the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences was premised on such a definable error of law as to free the district court from applying the “clearly erroneous” or “thorough conviction” test. See Stieg v. Commissioner of Patents, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 353 F.2d 899 (1965).
Yet, if we assume that the Board erred in a too rigid or limited definition of the- reduction to practice requirements, summary judgment would not be authorized nonetheless since only if there were no facts in issue which would have precluded summary judgment under a proper definition or standard for reduction to practice could the judgment be sustained.
After a careful reading, the transcript of the testimony before the Board is convincing to me that reasonable minds could differ as to its sufficiency to show reduction to practice under the proper standards. The testimony tending to support a reduction to practice is in many respects vague and unsatisfactory. In its essential aspects the proof rests importantly upon the testimony of Cody, he being a highly interested party. Evidence as to the time baffling was added to the device, which the testimony suggests was originally of dubious utility for its intended purpose, is not documented, consisting of a rather casual reference.3 In addition, the embodiment itself had not been preserved for inspection. The fact finder could consider these and other circumstances in arriving at a judgment whether the junior party had satisfactorily met his burden. See generally Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 64 S.Ct. 724, *129088 L.Ed. 967 (1944); 4 Revise and Caesar, Interference Law & Practice, Chapter XXXIII § 641 et seq. (1948). See also Miessner v. Hoschke, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 131 F.2d 865 (1942), and Jepson v. Egley, 231 F.2d 947, 43 C.C.P.A. 853 (1956), concerning the corroboration required in interference proceedings. Cf. Interchemical Corp. v. Watson, 145 F.Supp. 179 (D.D.C.1956), aff’d, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 149, 251 F.2d 390 (1958). Cody calls attention to the fact that Flymo did not cross-examine the witnesses before the Board and thus failed to clarify any questions left by their direct testimony. I can accept this as neither shifting the burden to the senior party or relieving Cody of his, nor as requiring the Board as the fact finder to accept without question the testimony before it. This is especially so in view of the interest of the party testifying and the long period which had elapsed between the time of the testimony and the event in question.
If the trial court were the fact finder, as indeed it would be if the summary judgment had been set aside and the case permitted to proceed to trial, there may have been sufficient factual question in the evidence already before it from the Board hearing in the absence of other evidence to permit a thorough conviction in favor of Cody despite the Board’s determination to the contrary. But other evidence at the trial, or a different but permissible appraisal of the record by the fact finder could well result in an absence of such conviction on its part.
In Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962), the Supreme Court emphasized that summary judgment under Rule 56 can be granted only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is and where no genuine issue remains for trial, and that the purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from the right to trial if they really have issues to try (citing Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967 (1944)). See also Edwards v. Mazor Masterpieces, Inc., 111 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 295 F.2d 547 (1961); Vale v. Bonnett, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 116, 191 F.2d 334 (1951); Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766 (1950).
The Court was of the view in Potter that summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation. I think that policy considerations, although essentially for other reasons, require that same view here, where the “thorough conviction” as a foundation for overturning agency action could rarely be entertained without according opportunity for development of facts beyond the record which led the agency to its presumptively correct conclusion,4 and a weighing of the testimony before the Board either with or without supplementation and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.
For the reasons stated I would remand the case to the district court for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment after trial.

. See the late case of Pro-Col Corp. v. Commissioner of Patents, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 142, 436 F.2d 296 (1970).

. E. g., Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 14 S.Ct. 772, 38 L.Ed. 657 (1894) ; United States v. Szuecs, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 240 F.2d 886 (1957) ; see Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 229 F.2d 37, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 1027, 100 L.Ed. 1491 (1956).

. “54. About when was it that you and John installed the baffles on the machine that you’re talking about?
A. That was in the fall or winter, I believe it was. It was after John’s season. The project wasn’t worked on right during the heart of the season. John wasn’t in this area at that time and I believe at that time, too, I was still in the Guards and I know I went to summer camp that year. * * *
56. What sort of baffles did you install in the fall of ’60?
A. They were some that was attached to the spider and then some attached to the inside of the housing. They were air deflectors to correct the torque of the machine.
57. The ones that were attached to the spider, what were they for?
A. For torque.
58. And the ones attached to the housing, what were they for?
A. Partially for torque, too, and to let the very tips of the cutting blade out.
59. Did it accomplish that?
A. Yes, it did, but still again it still wasn’t as efficient well, it was efficient but it wasn’t what we wanted. It was efficient to the point where it would cut grass okay but I’ve always been a person that if it’s worth doing it’s worth doing it right and we always strived for the best.”

. Cf. Stieg v. Commissioner of Patents, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 353 F.2d 899 (1965).