ACF Industries, Inc. v. Airtex Products, Inc.

241 F. Supp. 916, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 583, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9902
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois
DecidedMay 20, 1965
DocketCiv. No. 5193
StatusPublished

This text of 241 F. Supp. 916 (ACF Industries, Inc. v. Airtex Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ACF Industries, Inc. v. Airtex Products, Inc., 241 F. Supp. 916, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 583, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9902 (illinoised 1965).

Opinion

JUERGENS, District Judge.

This patent infringement suit is brought by ACF Industries, Incorporated, against Airtex Products, Incorporated, under the provisions of Section 281, Title 35 United States Code. Jurisdiction and venue are provided under Sections 1338 (a) and 1400(b), Title 28 United States Code.

Plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Defendant is an Illinois corporation and has its principal place of business in Fairfield, Illinois. Pursuant to stipulation, United Industrial Syndicate Incorporated, a New York corporation, was joined as a party defendant— this corporation having been in control of the operations of defendant Airtex Products, Incorporated, from a date prior to the service of the complaint in this action. Service of process was waived by United Industrial Syndicate, Incorporated, and it submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of this action.

The complaint alleges that on June 24, 1958 United States Letters Patent No. 2,840,003 was issued to the plaintiff’s assignors for an invention in fuel pump diaphragm assembly; that, at the present time and at all times since the issuance of the patent, plaintiff is the owner of the letters patent and of all rights of recovery thereunder; that defendant Airtex has been and is manufacturing, selling and using fuel pump diaphragm assemblies in infringement of the letters patent; that defendant was given notice of the letters patent and its infringement; that the patent has been put in commercial use and plaintiff has been damaged and will be irreparably injured unless the infringement activities are enjoined. Plaintiff prays for judgment-finding that plaintiff is the owner of the letters patent and all rights of recovery thereunder; that the patent is valid and has been infringed by the defendant; that an injunction be issued against the infringement by the defendant; that an accounting be had to determine damages adequate to compensate plaintiff for the infringement; that damages be trebled because of the willful and deliberate character of the infringement; and that assessment of costs be made against the defendant together with attorneys’ fees and for other relief the Court deems proper.

Defendant filed its answer, which consists of a general denial. As special defenses defendant alleges that (1) the patent was void for having been known and used in the United States more than one year prior to filing of the application; (2) the patent is void for want of invention over prior art; (3) the patent is void for the reason that the specification fails to give adequate information; (4) the patent is void for the reason that the patentees are not the true inventors; (5) the claims granted by the Patent Office describe structure for the first, time more than one year after the pumps having such structure were made and sold by plaintiff; (6) the attorneys prosecuting the patent application were aware of key prior art patents and failed to call the Examiner’s attention to such patents.

Defendant also filed a counterclaim under the Declaratory Judgments Act for a finding of invalidity and non-infringement of the patent and for a judgment finding the patent unenforceable for the reason that plaintiff is engaged in illegal practice with respect to the patent and that patentee is attempting to monopolize trade by virtue of price cutting in an effort to force defendant out of business in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman

[918]*918Anti-Trust Act and on the grounds of unfair competition and asks for an injunction forbidding plaintiff from threatening defendant’s customers or prospective customers or from alleging to such customers or to the trade in general that defendant is infringing the patent or is otherwise acting unlawfully.

During the pretrial proceedings it was stipulated that the defenses of violation of the Anti-Trust Law and of unfair competition are no longer a part of the case. Accordingly, the issues raised by the counterclaim with reference to the allegations of violation of the Anti-Trust Law and of unfair competition are no longer pertinent.

Plaintiff, through its Carter Carburetor Division in St. Louis, manufactures and sells fuel pumps to the automotive industry. These sales are primarily for use as original equipment; that is, the pumps are installed on new automobiles. To a much lesser extent plaintiff also sells fuel pumps in the “after” market, which includes sales for both equipment service and replacement service. Defendant Airtex manufactures and sells fuel pumps at its plant in Fairfield, Illinois; however, Airtex, unlike plaintiff, sells almost exclusively for replacement service. Defendant United Industrial Syndicate, Incorporated, is in control of the operations of defendant Airtex.

Plaintiff in support of its allegation of infringement relies only on claim 3 of the patent in suit.

Claim 3 is as follows:

“3. A fuel pump comprising a casing forming a pumping chamber, said pumping chamber having its end wall portion provided with inlet and outlet openings, a diaphragm forming a pumping element and one wall of said chamber, said diaphragm having its outer peripheral portion secured to the casing, said diaphragm being provided with an inwardly projecting bight at its outer portion, backing plates disposed upon the inner and outer sides of a central portion of the diaphragm, a centrally positioned operating stem connected thereto, spring means on the stem normally urging said diaphragm into said pumping chamber, the peripheral edge of said inner plate being spaced a sufficient distance from the • wall of said chamber to provide an annular area between said wall and said plate to permit said bight in said diaphragm to project therebetween in the direction of the pumping chamber, said peripheral portion of the inner backing plate extending along the adjacent inner face of the bight to guide and retain the same against deflection inwardly, and the peripheral portion of the outer backing plate being spaced laterally from the peripheral portion of the inner backing plate and normally projecting into the concave portion of said bight and engaging the adjacent outer concave wall of the diaphragm defining the bight for retaining the bight against outward deflection.”

The invention relates to engine driven fuel pumps of the diaphragm type.

Fuel pumps are used in internal combustion engines primarily of the gasoline type. They are used to pump gasoline from the gas tank to the carburetor where it is mixed with air and delivered into the engine and burned to furnish power.

Generally, the fuel pump is bolted to the engine and has a lever or rocker arm, one end of which engages the stem of a diaphragm assembly; the other end is projected into the engine where it comes into contact with a cam on the engine camshaft. The cam, being eccentric, causes the rocker arm to oscillate, thereby moving the diaphragm assembly of the fuel pump. The diaphragm assembly consists of a flexible diaphragm clamped between two plates. As the rocker arm moves, it alternately causes the diaphragm to raise and lower. As the diaphragm is raised or moved upward, it compresses a spring which surrounds the stem above the diaphragm assembly; and as the rocker arm is lowered, the compressed spring forces the diaphragm assembly downward. As the diaphragm is raised, it creates a suction in the pump [919]*919chamber below it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 F. Supp. 916, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 583, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acf-industries-inc-v-airtex-products-inc-illinoised-1965.