Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corporation
Date: 07-20-2001
Case Number: 00-1102
Judge: Alito
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ian G. Dibernardo and Kiersten M. Skog of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan, LLP, New York, New York and Steven B. Pokotilow and Stanley H. Cohen of Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen &
Pokotilow, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Defendant's Attorney: James C. McConnon and Alex R. Sluzas of Paul & Paul, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction in
favor of Southco, Inc. ("Southco"). Because wefind that
Southco's part numbers are not entitled to copyright
protection, we reverse the District Court's order.
I.
Southco manufactures various types of captive screw
fasteners, devices used in assembling the panels of items
such as computers and telecommunications equipment. 1
Important characteristics that distinguish among the huge
variety of fasteners include their length, thread size, finish,
recess type, installation type, screw diameter, and
composition. To assist its employees and customers in
identifying and distinguishing among its products, Southco
developed a numbering system to serve as a shorthand
description of the relevant characteristics of each fastener.
Under this system, each fastener is assigned a unique nine-
digit number, with each digit describing a specific physical
parameter of the fastener.2 Southco includes these numbers
in various Handbooks it publishes each year.3 Anyone who
is familiar with Southco's system should be able to
determine all of the relevant features of a particular screw
from its part number alone. This numbering system has
become an industry standard, and the part numbers
produced by the system are the subject of this copyright
infringement suit.
Matdan America ("Matdan") is a competing manufacturer
of panel fasteners. Kanebridge, known as Matdan's"master
distributor," sells Matdan fasteners to other distributors,
often at prices lower than Southco's. Because Southco's
numbering system has become an industry standard, many
of Kanebridge's customers often specify suitable fasteners
by reference to Southco's part numbers. Recognizing this
fact, Kanebridge began using Southco's part numbers in
comparison charts that were included in advertisements
and other literature that it provides to customers. These
charts display Kanebridge's and Southco's numbers for
equivalent fasteners in adjacent columns, making it clear
that these parts are interchangeable.4 According to
Kanebridge, the "ability to cross-reference Southco panel
fasteners in an honest, accurate and comparative manner"
is necessary to make competition viable. Appellant's Brief at
7. Without this ability, customers would lose the
opportunity to obtain lower-cost alternative fasteners.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corporation?
The outcome was: Reversed.
Which court heard Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corporation?
This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, PA. The presiding judge was Alito.
Who were the attorneys in Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corporation?
Plaintiff's attorney: Ian G. Dibernardo and Kiersten M. Skog of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan, LLP, New York, New York and Steven B. Pokotilow and Stanley H. Cohen of Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, Ltd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendant's attorney: James C. McConnon and Alex R. Sluzas of Paul & Paul, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
When was Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corporation decided?
This case was decided on July 20, 2001.