## Facts

- Reeves Brothers, Inc. owned U.S. patent rights to a foam-lamination process (the “Dickey patent”) and sued United States Laminating Corp. and Travis Rauch for patent infringement.
- Defendants used a foam-lamination method that Reeves alleged fell within the patent’s asserted claims.
- Defendants denied infringement and primarily attacked validity by arguing the patent was anticipated by disclosures in a German *Gebrauchsmuster* (utility model).
- Evidence described the German *Gebrauchsmuster* as a limited form of protection with a shorter term and a different issuance and dissemination system than a standard patent, and not typically treated as a publicly accessible printed disclosure comparable to published patent documents.
- After trial, the district court addressed validity (including anticipation) and, contingent on validity, infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether a German *Gebrauchsmuster* qualifies as a “foreign patent” or “printed publication” prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102 sufficient to anticipate a U.S. process patent.
2. Whether the *Gebrauchsmuster* disclosure, if considered, disclosed each element of the asserted claims so as to anticipate the Dickey patent.
3. Whether defendants infringed the asserted claims if the Dickey patent was valid.

## Decision

- The court held that the German *Gebrauchsmuster* did not qualify as an anticipating “printed publication” or prior-art patent within the meaning of § 102.
- The court further concluded that, in any event, the *Gebrauchsmuster* did not clearly disclose all material limitations of the asserted process claims as required for anticipation.
- The court upheld the validity of the Dickey patent against the asserted invalidity defenses.
- The court found defendants’ foam-lamination process within the scope of the asserted claims and held defendants liable for infringement.

## Legal Principles

- A reference qualifies as a “printed publication” under § 102 only if it was sufficiently publicly accessible to persons ordinarily skilled in the art.
- A foreign governmental grant is not automatically treated as a “foreign patent” for § 102 purposes; the instrument’s legal characteristics and the practical availability of its disclosure bear on whether it functions as patent-type prior art.
- Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every claim limitation, arranged as in the claim, with clarity sufficient to place the invention in the public’s possession.
- Invalidity is an affirmative defense, and the accused infringer bears the burden of proving invalidity.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the validity of a foam-lamination process patent, rejected a German *Gebrauchsmuster* as § 102 anticipating prior art (and found it did not fully disclose the claimed invention), and held that defendants’ process infringed the patent’s asserted claims.


Reeves Bros., Inc. v. U.S. Laminating Corp., 282 F. Supp. 118 (E.D.N.Y. 1968)