Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffstatutepatent
statutepatent

Related Cases

Shuman v. Gilbert, 229 Mass. 225, 118 N.E. 254, L.R.A. 1918C, 135, Am.Ann.Cas. 1918E, 793
View Case »
Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 63 S.Ct. 1115, 87 L.Ed. 1450, 57 U.S.P.Q. 285
View Case »
Jerome v. Ross, 7 Johns.Ch. 315, 2 N.Y. Ch. Ann. 305, 11 Am.Dec. 484
View Case »
Siegall v. Solomon, 19 Ill.2d 145, 166 N.E.2d 5
View Case »
Belknap v. Leary, 427 F.2d 496
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc., 374 F.2d 764, 152 U.S.P.Q. 535

Facts

The case centers on three patents owned by Major Edwin Armstrong, specifically Patent No. 1,941,069 covering a wideband FM system, Patent No. 1,941,066 for a synchronous heterodyne method for FM reception, and reissue Patent No. 21,660 for a preemphasis and deemphasis system. Armstrong's widow, as the plaintiff, claimed that Motorola's FM receivers infringed these patents. The court found that Motorola had previously engaged in license negotiations with Armstrong but ultimately decided not to take a license, believing it was not infringing. The court also noted that Armstrong had waived royalties for military purposes during World War II, which affected the timeline of the infringement claims.

The case centers on three patents owned by Major Edwin Armstrong, specifically Patent No. 1,941,069 covering a wideband FM system, Patent No. 1,941,066 for a synchronous heterodyne method for FM reception, and reissue Patent No. 21,660 for a preemphasis and deemphasis system.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the patents were valid and whether Motorola's FM receivers infringed those patents.

The main legal issues were whether the patents were valid and whether Motorola's FM receivers infringed those patents.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles surrounding patent validity, including the requirements for definiteness and the standards for determining infringement based on the claims of the patents.

The court applied the legal principles surrounding patent validity, including the requirements for definiteness and the standards for determining infringement based on the claims of the patents.

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims of the patents, particularly focusing on the definitions and requirements set forth in the patent statutes. It concluded that the claims of the '069 patent were not indefinite despite lacking a specific numerical value for bandwidth, as they sufficiently described the invention's purpose and operation. The court also found that Motorola's FM receivers operated within the parameters of the patented inventions, thus constituting infringement.

The court analyzed the claims of the patents, particularly focusing on the definitions and requirements set forth in the patent statutes.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the District Court's judgment that all three patents were valid and that Motorola had infringed them. The court upheld the findings that Motorola's FM receivers were specifically designed to operate in accordance with Armstrong's patented wideband FM system.

The court affirmed the District Court's judgment that all three patents were valid and that Motorola had infringed them.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Major Armstrong's estate, as the court upheld the validity of the patents and found Motorola liable for infringement.

The prevailing party was Major Armstrong's estate, as the court upheld the validity of the patents and found Motorola liable for infringement.

You must be