Trenton Industries v. A. E. Peterson Manufacturing Co.

Facts

John Adler created a high chair that was foldable and distributable, comparedto other high chairs because it contained a signature attachment item,which was publicly disclosed in previous patents. However, Adler did not create the attachment item. Adler sharedhis high chair with Haugh. Haugh gave a sample chair to Peterson, the owner of A. E. Peterson Manufacturing Company (“Defendant”). Haugh proposed to negotiate a royalty agreement with Peterson to permit Peterson’s manufacture of the chair. For two months, Peterson examined the chair. However, Peterson decided to return the chair to Haugh and decline to manufacture the chair.Subsequently,Peterson put a chair, which was similar to Alder’s chair, on the market, and did not reimburse Adler for using his chair’s design. Thereafter, Trenton Industries (“Plaintiff”), a company that Alder managed, received a patent for Adler’s chair. On the patent application, there was a combination-patent claim detailing the elements that present on the chair instead of the attributed that made the chair unique. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging patent infringement and for compensation in quasi-contract for operating the chair before the issuance of the patent. Defendant asserted the defense that the patent was invalid, thus Defendant did not infringe on any rights, as Plaintiff founded his design on church chairs, which he believed he was free to use in good faith.