## Facts

- U.S. Patent No. 3,002,240 issued on October 3, 1961 to Maxime Laguerre for a plastic-bag “closure device” used to seal bags (including candy bags).
- Laguerre later transferred the patent to John L. Rie, Inc. (Rie) by written assignment dated November 12, 1968; Rie manufactured and sold the closure devices.
- Rie’s product was sold as a sealer with two main parts, commonly described as a collar and a bridle component, and it was produced in multiple sizes.
- Rie shipped sealers in cartons containing 5,000 units; each carton bore a label or inscription that included the patent number.
- Each individual sealer had markings on the bridle component showing Rie’s name and location and the words “PAT PEND.” The court found the inscriptions could be read with the naked eye, including on the smallest sizes.
- Shelly Bros., Inc. (Shelly Bros.), a candy manufacturer, used bag sealers with collar-and-bridle components similar to Rie’s sealers. The accused sealers were supplied to Shelly Bros. by Union Paper Company.
- Rie sued Shelly Bros. in federal court for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, seeking damages for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement.
- By the time Shelly Bros. received notice of the lawsuit, it had already stopped using the accused device. Shelly Bros. argued that Rie could not recover damages for any period before notice of suit because Rie allegedly failed to mark its product as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287.

## Issues

1. Whether Shelly Bros.’ bag-sealing device infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 3,002,240.
2. Whether Rie’s product and packaging markings provided statutory notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287, allowing recovery of damages for infringement occurring before Shelly Bros. received actual notice.
3. Whether an injunction was proper given Shelly Bros.’ assertion that it had ceased using the accused device before receiving notice of the suit.

## Decision

- The court found that Shelly Bros. used a device that infringed Rie’s patent.
- The court held that Rie’s marking practice satisfied 35 U.S.C. § 287, so Rie was not restricted to damages only after Shelly Bros. received actual notice.
- The court entered judgment for Rie, awarding damages for the proven infringement period and granting injunctive relief against further infringement despite Shelly Bros.’ claimed discontinuance.

## Legal Principles

- Patent infringement is established when the accused product falls within the scope of the asserted patent claims, based on comparison of claimed elements to the accused structure and operation.
- Under 35 U.S.C. § 287, when a patentee makes or sells a patented article, damages may be limited to the period after the infringer receives actual notice unless the patentee gives constructive notice through marking.
- Marking sufficiency turns on whether the markings, taken in context, reasonably notify the public that the article is patented; marking may be found adequate where cartons display the patent number and the articles themselves bear visible identifying inscriptions that signal patent rights.
- A defendant’s voluntary cessation of infringing conduct does not automatically bar injunctive relief; a court may still enjoin future infringement when liability is found and future violation remains a reasonable concern.

## Conclusion

John L. Rie, Inc. proved that Shelly Bros. used an infringing bag-closure device covered by U.S. Patent No. 3,002,240, and the court held that Rie’s combination of patent-number labeling on 5,000-unit cartons and visible “PAT PEND”/company inscriptions on each sealer satisfied § 287, allowing recovery of pre-suit damages and supporting an injunction to prevent renewed infringement.


John L. Rie, Inc. v. Shelly Bros., Inc., 366 F. Supp. 84 (1973)