Peter Gabor Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Peter Gabor Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13631 (1983)
Winning Party
Peter Gabor Kalman
Key Issue
Patent Infringement
Case Type
CIVIL
Facts
•
Garrahan, U.S. Patent No. 1,195,576, describes and claims a "Rubber-Reclaiming Machine."
•
Kimberly-Clark Corp. ("KC") was accused of infringing Kalman's patent.
•
The Berlyn devices use a hydraulic ram to incrementally push a series of three interlocked filter plates across the extrusion passage.
•
The Moziek patent discloses a sliding "screen changer" method, while the essence of the Kalman invention is the continuous filter.
•
Kalman solves specific problems not provided for by the prior art, including prevention of leakage, continuous filtering, and maintenance of constant temperature and pressure in the plastic upstream.
•
The prior art reference relied upon is U.S. Patent No. 3,112,525 to Moziek for an "Apparatus for Extruding Thermoplastic Material."
•
KC stipulated that the asserted claims "read on" the accused infringing devices, but for the limitations in claims 1 and 18 which speak of a filter "in the form of a band or ribbon."
•
The District Court held claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25 of Kalman's patent valid and infringed by KC.
•
Moziek does not provide for a band or ribbon or any length of filter.
•
The Moziek patent describes an extrusion device that utilizes single slidable cartridge filter assemblies.
•
The accused infringing devices are Berlyn Continuous Filters Model Nos. CF3539 and CF4549.
•
The district court found that the linked filters in the Berlyn continuous filter devices are equivalents of the 'band or ribbon' described in the patent.
•
Kalman owns U.S. Patent No. 3,471,017 for a "Filtering Process and Apparatus."
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
Claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 3,471,017 are valid because the prior art, specifically Moziek, does not anticipate the claimed invention, nor is the claimed invention obvious in light of the prior art.
•
The Berlyn Continuous Filters Model Nos. CF3539 and CF4549 infringe claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 3,471,017 because the accused devices fall within the scope of the asserted claims, as interpreted by the court.
Citations
Peter Gabor Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13631, 713 F.2d 760, 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 781 (1983)
Legal Reasoning
The court affirmed the district court's judgment that Kalman's patent was valid and infringed. The court reasoned that the claims should not be limited to movement of the filter by hydrostatic pressure, as the dependent claims contained that limitation. The court also found that the prior art, specifically Moziek, did not anticipate the claimed invention because it did not disclose a band or ribbon filter. Finally, the court held that the claimed invention was not obvious in light of the prior art, as it solved several long-standing problems in the field.
Outcome
The court affirmed the district court's judgment holding claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25 of Kalman's U.S. Patent No. 3,471,017 valid and infringed by Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved