Gonser v. Leland Detroit Manufacturing Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
291 N.W. 631 (1940)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1935, John Gonser (plaintiff) invented and patented a meat-tenderizing device. There were other known devices in the prior art and in the marketplace used for meat tenderizing in which the meat was placed through rollers and tenderized through a scissor-like action. The novelty in Gonser’s device was the specified arrangement of pairs of crushing gears carried by a shaft, with cutter members and spacers between the gears. The device itself had two steel rolls resembling large, symmetrical ears of corn with rows of kernels of uniform size, in the middle of which were inserted small projecting steel knives that were perpendicular to the roller shaft. Gonser licensed his patented invention to Leland Detroit Manufacturing Co. (Leland) (defendant), a product manufacturer. The license contained a provision stating that if Leland made any improvements or modifications of “said invention,” the improvements or modifications became the property of and must be transferred to Gonser (the grant-back provision). Thereafter, Leland did not have much success selling Gonzer’s meat tenderizer because the small knives on the device frequently broke off and the device was not easy to clean. Prior to terminating the license agreement, Leland developed a new machine, for which it subsequently applied for patent protection. The new machine was housed in the same structure as Gonser’s, but the rolls did not have cutter knives or blades, the new machine lacked any crushing gears, and the rolls operated in a scissor-like manner on meat, reminiscent of prior art. Gonser sued Leland for specific performance, claiming that Leland’s improvement belonged to Gonser under the grant-back provision. Leland argued that its machine was entirely different from Gonser’s patented product and was based on older, known processes. The trial court ruled in Gonser’s favor and ordered specific performance. Leland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Butzel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.