# Amicus Curiae Brief — American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_0498%3A11 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1931 - **Citation:** 283 U.S. 1 ## Text IN THE : a onal Court of the Cnited States ss iz | Pies Ocroper meri 1929, Rigas American Frurr Growers, Inc:, Petitioners, - Brocpex Company, Respondent. . } ‘ | : ° "s+ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE.._ eS , : (GES ERGs ‘ Frep H. Davee,’ Be} | a . Attorney General, State Florida. - ". Barry Mouun, | | 4 eS Seah 7 G@zo. E. Equorr, ~~ °.- . - - ts oh "+..." Washington, D. C. ee, | eas Amici Curiae. ! Fawny H. poore erat SiC: ; Washington, D. C. ..j Wm. Huyrer, . > fampa, Florida. - oo Of Counsel. | \ Pause or Brgon 8. Avaus, ‘Wasutnotox, D. SUBJECT INDEX.. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ....... rem ie ie STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... re NECESSITY FOR GRANTING THE WRIT,... 3 _ Point I. Question of Federal Law which should be settled by this og | UTE EET OEE 4 Point Ik The lower Federal courts have decided © the present case in conflict with the most néarly applicable | decisions of adhis court ,.........006: bueeeiekes ‘ne - — Point 111. The lower courts’ decisions are based _ on propositions of law contrary to holdings i in other CORE 5s hae ees ‘13 Point 1V. Public Tiarent’: eerobdopeveaws PEERS Pe 20 | TABLE OF CASES CITED. . Atmerican Disappearing Bed Co. v. Arnaelsteen, 900 Wed: TOR. bo cto ecccs os Pre, or eee Pea American Frit. Growers, Ine.,. v. Brogdex Co. . (D. Cs) (21 Fed. (Sd) FiO s 00. cert coscevcess 2,3: ‘American Fruit - ‘Growers, Ine.,.v. Brogdex Co. . (C. C. A.), 35 Fed. (: |g” SORE SND hg es 2 Auheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United States, 7 Pe A ry eres 6,7, 15 Armstrong Seatag C orp. v. Smith’ s Island Oyster , i, Se es ca Ceweul. ane anon Freres 13, 14 “Baker ¥. Duncombe. Manufacturing: Co., , ME Fed. « SOR Oe Te Mieerevers (Mi iecesvate> eoccee 18 Continental Fibre Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., TY FON GOB vs cards ib ev ses ee ae 19 PT SEE SPO oe eo, . Brocpex Company, Respondent... a . a -_ ‘ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE. . INTRODUCTORY STATEMEN T. Counsel appearing herein as amici curiae represent, nespactinely, She State of Florida, and—the—Blozida This brief is submitted in the belief that several sig- nificant and important. questions of law are involved w hich require final determination by this court, 2 : e The decision of the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Third Cireuit in this case is to be fourid in 35° Fed. (2d) 106 (R. Vol. 1, page 705), ‘and that of the District’ “Court in 21 Fed. (2a) 110. RS, | STATEMEN T OF FACTS. ' The respondent company filed suit for infringement. of United States Letters Patent No. 1,529; 461, issued March 10, 1925, to Ernest M. Brogden and Miles re Trowbridge on an application filed August 15, 1928. The bill charged the petitioner wit with h infringoment-of process elaims-and ar icle ‘claims. - The patent in suit relates to the method of presérv- ing fruit,-and mores partic ‘ularly to the prevention of deeay. of such fruit by retarding’ the dev elopment of blue mold. ‘laim’ 3 may be considered as typical of —- the process claims, and reads as follows: + 3. In-the preparation of: fresh fruit for market, ‘the process which comprises subjecting fruit to the ~ action of an aqueous solution of borax, the fluidity,’ _ strength and temperature of the treating solution, and tke duration of the treatment,-being such that exposed rind or skin tissues of the fruit are etfee- ' tively impregnated with borax and rendered, resis- tant to blue mold Weeay, while at the same time the fruit is net scalded hor is its freshness or edibility otherwise substantially impaired, ‘¢. The followihg may be taken ag typical of the article claims: 26. F resh citrus fruit of whieh the tind er skin . earries borax “in amount that is very small but - sufficient to render the fruit resistant to blue mold decay. i | aed ” 3 . . coe see ee The District C ourt ‘rendered a decree holding that : the claims of the patent were valid and that petitioner infringed claims 1. to 7, 9, 14-to 18, and 23 to 26 inglu- sive (21 Fed. (2d) 110). This decision was affirmed on appeal by. the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Petitioner sought a rehearing, which was: _ denied on | November 15, 1929. _ NECESSITY FOR OR GRANTING THE WRIT. tis submitted t that the the writ of certiorari sought by ' petitioner shouls Il be granted for the following: reasons : ‘Federal law which has not. been settled by this court. 2. The decisions havetia by the Federal. District © Court and the Circuit Court -of Appeals are. in - _ conflict with the most pearly sppiicable decisions of by court. | ‘The District Court anil the Cireuit Court of se Poot: rendered, their decisions on: bases incon- somant with the law’ as announced in other circuits. 4. The public interest (this eontrov ersy.is sub-— ‘stantial and warrants a determination of the ques- . ‘tions involved by this court. It will be observed that of the reasons above set forth for.the granting of the writ, 1, 2 and 3 are in- cluded within the reasons which will he consider ed by _ this ceurt in exercising its sound judicial discretion, as contained in Subsection b, paragraph 5 5, Rule 38 of Revised Rules,.effective July 1, 1928. In respect of the - reason assigned’ in paragraph 4 we invite attention to the case of Magnum Import Company v. Coty, 262 U.S. 159, 163, where it is stated that certiorari is employed ‘‘second, to .bring up cases inv nvolving questions of im- 1: This case presents an important question of . ee portanee w hich it is-int the public interest to have de- cided by this court of last resort.”” . I. Question of Federal Law Which Should be Settled by this Court. The lower courts- held that the oranges: which peti-. tioner>sélls constitute’ an infringement of the articte - claims 23 to 26 inclusive. The oranges here i in question ¢an be distinguished from the ordinary orange only after careful chemical analysis (Petition for Certi- orari, page 2). T hey are identical with-oranges. fresh from the trees save for a minute amount of borax in - the rind. An tdea of the infinitesimal quantity of borax upon any one orange is obtained when it is shown that a pound of borax is used for twerity-five thousand « oranges (Petition for Certiorari, page 3). ‘The ‘ques. — tion presented for determination by this ¢ourt is ‘whether such an object is ‘*an article of manufacture, ”’ or rather a ‘‘manufacture,’* within the contemplation _ of: patent law. Counsel have been unable to find any case decided by this court in which a definition’ in the patent sense of the word “manufacture” has” been given, nor has any decision of this court: been found wherein there -has been squarely: presented for. deter- mitration the question of just ‘what ix a manufacture, as found in Seetion ed of the: Revised Statutes (See tion 31, Title 35 U.S..C.-Al}. Certainly no ease ap- . proximating: the ate ‘eltuaticn has been presented | ‘for the decision of this court. . _It-is true that there are decisions in ‘the various Cc ir- cuits which attempt to define the w ord *‘manufacture”’ e * She ‘but .as- will be hereinafter’ pointed out, such: decisions are in conflict. - It is of large ‘moment to the publie that: it be ap- : _prised of the meaning of the w ord ‘‘manufacture’’ as used.in (ag patent staffites, particularly in view-of' the _ diversity of opinions between the lower Federal courts. In the absence of any authoritative. definition of the ae Se word ‘tmanufacture’’ by this court, it is submitted that =. [ the questions raised and product involved in the instant = 2 case present an opportunity for laying down a defini- tion for the guidance.of the lawer courts and the pyb-. lic, and of determining the limits of the statute. _ 7 The rene Federal Courts ‘Have Decided the. Present ee . Case in Conflict with the Most peerty Aprikelie . Decisions of This Court. Ye Lt Both of the lower Federal courts in n their decisions 5 . —held_that an orange treated in accordance with the "process of the patent formed_a_ proper subject: matter - — for an article claim, . This holding: of ‘the lower courts 2 ’ was. over the strenuous objection of petitioner, and was evidently predicated on the supposed authority >. of Riter-Conley Manufacturing Company v. Aiken et - yi al., 203 Fed. 699. That case, which held. a_ building’ ‘structure to be an article of manufacture within the. sense ofthe patent law, will be discussed presently, — oe and its insufficienty as an authority in the instant case ° ; pointed out, . Whilst, as above. stated, ‘no Pi eee of this court has been found in which there was presented for deter- * tination the question of just what’ the word ‘‘*manu- facture” in the patent Statutes embraces, support. for , - . ‘ : a bg . ; ; . F- ; ; . 7“? . id > > ‘ : : , ‘ * ‘ ; Tea: ; ‘ : RPG ES igeatae 9 Pa RCN ce ERR on sive ieoncam owen % eee Rot 2 ae eee “Wis x is. not! an aitiels of manufacture i is to be found in . thy decisions of this court. Attention is invited to le case of Anheuser- Busch Brewi ing Association v. The United States, 207 U. S$. 556, in which there was presented the question | ‘of whether corks which. had been subjected to a. rather elaborate treatment were — ‘articles of manufacture’ under the tariff law. » The. -extent of the treatment to which’ the raw corks were " subjected is evidenced by the fact that the whole proc: ess took from one to three days. The contention Was. mate fir that cteve that ‘any change in a natural prod uct rendered that prodtet a manufacture’ substan tially: the same contention which: the respondefit has . a made herein and in which the lower caurts acquiesced, The answer of this votrt to that conte ntion made j in the Anheuser Busch case was, in the following language . (p. 2) : 6 Pe ne eee ayn ; 2 — t ~ > & . : "ee ‘Sawin ‘ imilies a. chatige, bat’ every change is not manufacture, and yet every change _ in we article is the result. of treatment, labor, and: es mam Rulation.” ony Again, in Nie earlier aa of Hwioeuis " Wiegmann, 121 U. S. GON, there. was presented the’ question of whether shells of Mollusea). which had bees «abjected to: rather -extemaive treatment were- manufartores, This eourt held that - they could het be property. con: sidered a “mannfactary ve, 1 disposing of the conten: » ‘tron that. they should™ be placed jn that category the. court. nae the following. language (p. 618):°° + Bld ‘They: were atill shells : They had not heen mat afactured: into a new and different article, having a distinetive name, character. of use from that af ee ee . ies iw . f ATARI 2 : nee een foo pexsese ee ee 2, . . - . . f 2 eta . . . - : - ‘ “ “ es . 7 ao . “ ‘ * ‘ . . ‘ > *- a shell. .The application of labor ‘to an article, © _ either-by hand or dy: mechanism,.does not make the article necessarily ‘a manufactured article; within. themeaning of that term as used in the: tariff laws. . Washing and scouring wool does not make the re- _ - gulting wool a manufacture of: wool. Cleaning: eee ginning cotton does not make the resulting: — cotton a manufyctate of cottori.’ & aS ? . o.~ ‘It is submitted that the decisions by this court in - tariff Cases are applicable. to cases involving patents. This corftention- is not without authority. The Case of Stiter Conley’ Manufacturing Company v. Aiken, 203 —. Fed, 699, the very case relied upon byt the Cirenit | ‘Court of Appeals in support of its holding herein that ‘the article claims .were directed to subject matter em. i braced within the statute, ‘relies largely upon interpre. | tahens of the word “manufacture” hy courts: in de ciding tariff cases, After quoting: from only- a single patent case and three texthookn, the court in the Riuter.” f'n mlew vase attempted: te eupport its definition of the - word ‘manufactare” hy queting from *ix cases, none - of which involved pate nis, and two of which were cases : eased open the tariff act ie: Bs adopting that sarge procedure in Weineptant wit: uation, if will be readily seen that the decimons of the - (°° jower courts herein are clearly irreconcilable with the " decisions of. thie eourt a the Awhénecs Busch and eae ee Haetranti ie gman cares, supra, “an both of which Caen the patural products were rubjected to more ex tensive and elaborate treatment thas. “1. aceorded the ; frssit in the instant Cane, ‘, an 22 4%. Ut ie farther respect{ wily evhenitted that ‘the lower courte rendered opinions. that were jn conflict with the opinidne of this court in so far as the procter Claite } of the Brogden s ard Trow bridge patenteart concerned. selene “tae eg 4 / #. a ae tieweny af: Prank fee they, the aom af a ga ien ten, Bee: \ ‘In the trial of this 1005). - The -antiseptic + saeed preservative quality, PO Bie dat beracie acid (whieh -is ineluded in-the scdpe of the ~ protons tlaime herein) Was aled disclosed tis’ the Bish. | op U,. SS. patent Ne’ fst 8), iaesed on Uetober $1 . “(R. volt, page #27), which patent wae-for a prowess |. of. p exerving fotds hy dipping the foo! i a bo rare, > pebe | solution ated subterjuently, reat rs the food with’... = Kelatin. “With fespiort té the action “of Sarat eid ai on the | fired Bushey eave TR vol AL pagic 37) Wa diy egy Sat e © : Tie article of. fond (tenif: « egetahhes, gees to treatedt i¢ Rret Waeber]> or tuaterd im a Ceo # : atively . weak ted ation of Dene Bet wer a? we ah, hawt he. ‘ ettuve an? Bnet all gwrtyee ail t Bene onag bly o litam yew’ Bi cx bile sin amt Fenders The arte fae: we eee sad ; \ FA “The Hiadop paitein® wae nat» teense et wm eine jeri een om the pert af the potent ce ; of gig cet f meth ao tse tee paay wae SF patent ie, perry "on the gatoorwwme af the * paatipe eH. val: “Eh, gowge TEA: we Ht. thitg Fatt heer tae. | . 2 that he peranmially Babted "tale! al seers whe. pease ‘the aempgile ny severe tia ‘te * Potigfenarn te ot aye f — pap tare? th. vied, Eo ‘en: Wie 5 ptt ” . P 4 bad . “Rese Pa: olen waewertiemn ane re conan ‘wahe onverrod 2 ; g tlhe fear biased Rem. s WH. ont er: sant: aia a S reheat of wee saan trad ae int; af » Thee ici holww ‘eat er gap of Laniacsl wae | eenevig atend wf oe septics and preserv atives was ‘old and well know n long _ prior to the alleged siny enition of Brogden and) Trow- _\ bridge, . . The question in then presented: whether | the ine oo tne: of an old: and well Jknpwn process for preke ving aa ane food: forms a prijper basis for & patent which limite ‘the- use, of that process to a mpocific kind? of food, | & namely citrus fruit jn. the préservation of whieh it 3 _ log beets wos! before ‘The petitioner; in, ! “brief filed herein in support . of the -petiiien” qt tae the . writ, ‘refers 1 Rev eral ¢ of. the leading * c ease: inf thie .eourt on tha “question. Tt is desired \ - refed tw jos one additice sia Caen, that A Milligan: and - “Wiggins Glee c* ‘om pany Re plom, 97 UV. B82, “The pont thie by weber a ae srk fo ton itt ecute » watt i Ngo from. the fepert: ee ee eee ‘the. ylave pres ees know mtn andl “ane pe me beets monk im: Ahe fort. of ‘Rakes, tyt: his « ay held thie grateat yar ald for wand ol iaee bin. We quote ” t dcumms thes fn ts cmt tis Viet cme the fuljew inp y whined ntiewde . . ° . ie oi A hee Seo ‘pit tlhe qwpetoon "of puwenit vy’ ae the "4 ees qyaeoes > ot: wi the a phedit's: wf Fenghindont Kw arta ie - : tine pe ae, GF Bae . . Bee 7 ar oh — was wast mares Tome eur Va ied - oF ‘* Pree + \eetex! * mtd ey ne eer 3 : vpriagtere hawt ya d- he waged, ele. i ng: ated a 4 sen or at nl bd conden renege ttle bieriene ~ The whee > os ont there i nuit war for. glues raiber finely pm i Peres ; ” RS . tHe epee “oormeget ih, ways Foamy, q sie gremtesr Scand oe he fad wr gede eof “seamen i e otete . i eee tational a Pa ae sen pate gorrengnent roe. aed. + Tae Seeman arian: Evite Cee qultonbad doieapoete: wep Deter eae air stenee: wronshe thee apes wyeserd | * a ne gopenn san ie ees airy tebike gredtyeth enteral when. — ax thy adhead seit monet parton a pT En ae 3p - *\ ee geri “* : ; a Be : ra Sa es oe a ; 6. 5 - ° : 6 , Fhe contention which was made by the reapondent: wae Faghth Cirenit in W chester C ampany *_ Dunham, rupna, and was disposer of by the ecurt in the following lan af Ruage: (181 Fed. RM, 8) ween panes differenne the eourt wtated pe 46)" ee eefane pretmenttion and aalartatien, ated - ie in iteelf anything mote than « difference in - : ditvene, and the advantage ‘of petting ae tmueth . ob ous fo every one i bicen| = ; Ae from the well-ectilod rale that the commercial eueCeRe . of an alleged ina ention and the fact that others were its " urged. before the Circuit, Conit. of Appents ‘of the * Dey a ~ cs \ eee : . . . aaa ? mi - . . e ° * i y “5 ea ng = . ie ; : “ai i. M 4 t.3% : , : : se eae ehet, tone wit bom shes oe Tr. ae | + eres e “| MESA UF eee hee es s se ot ow es . : . : 2 7 ie Se o ‘ . - yor ae | hi Kee 4 5 8 4 ‘ x ey ba} or fa ey, “= * ties ae ae ° ‘ geben ef oes a Te te ae aes > ‘ ~ Saeey \ , . - =i : SEER E ‘ PhS CSTE LHR TOS #44) * he ee tev eae La ” Te) ee) ae ee oe ae wae g bao es ae on ee) Aes ‘ = hi 4 _ % enn & oe wheats oe a ey vee? eee? ° i mee A . e. 2 ’ : * é page . > oR bead 2 eter | * ela * “ . ‘ : . . +. 4 . ic win Re i #ee we Ox * “>? * +o"e . ee og ? ade 5 : ; 7 . 5 ‘ ° . cS eee . S moe : : ; PE oa! ster tape . : Li fc - - e ore 7 . ; . ° ; . y ¥ . . . ‘ “ F . - . . : shee + ee? ¢ * én ee eee on ¢ae+ A aks m ¥ ant ) . = ; s : * - . Se tt i % © ¥ segs Boece tae pees ‘ , a2 ¥ ose . - : we s » a 7 ji ee = . > s i oF ; ‘eeepc ie “ is \iees ERE Oe FRPP OR ety : P «ie ° * - ‘ : , a : : } ; : ; ideas sil a tin « yore ; ‘ ete ae Thee senbiger ren” wert te te. Ay fae . j Mi . : & Z ‘ ae tshees fertedesttey - " " . = . , @r* : . 6 . 4 d o ; re “! ae e . ef 1 _e ‘ “4 a aie . ¥5 te! t / * 2 hs ° rie: “oe = : fq * 7 . a * Va : \ . f $ ‘2 ? : ao 4 » erase é 4 : yaks ° WE. OR * Ve ie og : oa) - SREP SOR Veeacee Werte ooh dp. @ hae b® weeenget Pe . . . . = y, * ie oe . ~ ae ae © 2 x — oe , cok 4 of é ee iba ee eRere > toe site? : + em eK at 4 - ‘ 3 : : 4 pai Ms ae yd : : ‘ Bou fee Pi mee eatrd pi Mawte “Stee - oi . . : . re % ° ae . 5 _ oe tee + = a6’ ‘ . 3 i fe a) ri . g . ) y : 4 gs } : “ ¥ j ' + . Se . rf ’ . ‘ - . 6 = * a . . ~ . i 6 - by = - . - ¢ a ot “~? é - a z . : se eo bas ™ . J : mol Ce eer - , rs 2 ,° 755 a ‘ eae on : om: a . hates beet 0 = pe ee oS . te ‘ . @ wre ereerey ees , . 4 is : . a i a ares A ee 3 a eee ‘ Pa o geese x : : - . s . . : . . p . : . -} « bn : ° = : | . oe ~ ‘ Z =_ oh” 4 . a e > H 2 fi . 4 Me . £ =" . 7 e4 #\: - . Sena oy . ve A > . ; ; ‘ ae ; nye i: o . ‘ ‘ i > . vs . % r : ° ” ; vw &: 9 2 tee ‘ é ' . : : 2 ; . : & i" . PI x . ° 7 ’ wats * N . 7 ce *% ao ®. . . £ J ’ § - @9 . a ” . a ¥ . ae if me . 3 . bic - » . e - . sees & eae oe - me . . “es “ P > Ot Pee - ‘ = 4 . . $ emg 4 me i . os. - t : *! ~ . : pe . . e,te 6 - R ° ie “ . oo te a SG, . oar. LJ - on . . bd be ° ’ . : ? . “e “s : ae , > 9, . e . . x x P a PE IO™, e . ee . fg . . pas if - eo . ‘ . q . . - = ‘ > » ° Ld e . 4 . . z i y Pyne ’ ° - : ~ 2 . Se nee ° P ; ¢ . = - . ad . 4 ' ' = F - 4 oy i = : . . ; 2 be ve . . i e : » . . . . ee a Se / ° a2 ° : . . i z . . - tie: J b . . ; ‘ ean) “2a ’ , ; is . no e. - — ° - , °. . ; A. aes a ; : : : i w pis: Nuts at laa a . . ¥ ia Ps * i , . : é eo S . . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_0498%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.