Citations
- 184 F. Supp. 844
Full opinion text
HARPER, Chief Judge.
This is a suit for patent infringement, this court having jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(a). The plaintiff was issued U. S. Patent No. 2,533,850 on a “Utility Handbag Having Double Compartment With Individual Closures and Independently Accessible Bottle Pockets.” The patent was applied for on September 13, 1947. The bag is lined with waterproof material and has two parallel compartments separated by a divider. These two compartments are for wet and dry diapers. At each end of the bag is a compartment for a baby’s milk bottle. Entrance to the four compartments of the bag is gained by separate zippered closures.
The defendant contends (1), that the plaintiff is not the owner of the patent in suit and therefore cannot maintain this action, and (2), the patent in suit is invalid for lack of invention.
There has been one suit by the plaintiff against a different defendant involving the patent here involved. In Syracuse and New Wonder Bag Corp. v. Paris, No. 15994, the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, granted a summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the patent was invalid for lack of invention. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, 234 F.2d 65. The plaintiff agrees that if New Wonder Bag Corporation is the owner of the patent in suit, it is an indispensable party. The defendant contends that there is “proof positive” that the plaintiff is not the owner. First, the defendant points to the complaint in Syracuse and New Wonder Bag Corp. v. Paris, supra, which was unverified and which alleged that the plaintiff Syracuse was the owner of the patent up to “ * * * January 5,1951, when said patent was assigned to * * * ” the corporation. Secondly, the defendant in its brief, purporting to quote from the cross-examination of the plaintiff by her own attorney when her deposition was taken on behalf of defendant Paris on July 28, 1954, in connection with the first suit, states as follows:
“Q. (By Mr. Geauque) Mrs. Syracuse, in connection with defendant’s Exhibit 3, (a, copy of