Chesterfield v. United States

159 F. Supp. 371, 141 Ct. Cl. 838, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 445, 1958 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 109
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 5, 1958
DocketNo. 49230
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 159 F. Supp. 371 (Chesterfield v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chesterfield v. United States, 159 F. Supp. 371, 141 Ct. Cl. 838, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 445, 1958 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 109 (cc 1958).

Opinion

Opinion

per curiam:

This case involves a claim that the United States has infringed certain patents that were owned by the plaintiff.

The case, which involves both the issue of validity and the question of infringement, was referred under Eules 45 and 46 to Donald E. Lane, a trial commissioner of the court. The commissioner was directed to make findings of fact and to recommend legal conclusions in the light of the findings of fact, applicable statutes, and legal principles involved.

Pursuant to such reference, the commissioner has submitted his findings of fact and conclusion of law.

The court, after having considered the evidence, the briefs, and arguments of counsel, adopts the findings and opinion of [840]*840Commissioner Lane, which are printed below, and pursuant thereto plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

This is a suit for patent infringement. Plaintiff contends that claim 5 of United States patent 1,698,934, and claim 4 of United States patent 1,698,935 have been infringed by certain heat-resistant alloys procured by the defendant.

Two issues are before the court, first, the validity of the two claims in suit, and, second, whether the defendant has infringed said patent claims. It is recognized that, of those two issues, validity has the greater public importance. Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp. 325 U. S. 327, 65 USPQ 297. Where the court finds as a fact that the patent claims in suit are clearly invalid for want of invention, it may not be necessary to consider the issue of infringement. The Dow Chemical Company v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, 324 U. S. 320, 64 USPQ 412.

The patents in suit relate to metal alloys containing cobalt and nickel with other metals and nonmetals. The patent specifications state that the alloys disclosed are designed for use in the production of high-speed cutting tools. The alloys contain cobalt, nickel, and carbon plus a metal or metals capable of forming hard carbides. Patent 1,698,934, hereinafter called the ’934 patent, has the broader claims, and patent 1,698,935, hereinafter called the ’935 patent, has claims specific to the use of chromium and molybdenum as metals forming hard carbides.

Claim 5 of the ’934 patent reads:

An alloy comprising 10 to 45% cobalt, 7 to 30% nickel, and 0.5 to 3.5% carbon, the remainder of the alloy consisting chiefly of metal capable of forming hard carbide.

Claim 4 of the ’935 patent reads:

An alloy comprising 15 to 50% cobalt, 7 to 30% nickel, 20 to 45% chromium, and 7 to 35% molybdenum, with a small amount of carbon.

The patent claims recite alloy compositions in terms of ranges expressed in maximum and minimum percentages by [841]*841weight for each of several elements. The ranges claimed are relatively broad, such as 7-30 per cent nickel. The specifications disclose several specific alloys with compositions that are within the limits claimed. The specification of the ’935 patent is similar to that of the ’934 patent, but emphasizes the use of molybdenum as a metal capable of forming a hard carbide.

The patents state that alloys for high-speed cutting tools must have the property of red hardness so that a tool made therefrom may maintain its cutting edge after the same has become red-hot. It is stated that such alloys must also have abrasive hardness and should contain hard crystals, usually metallic carbides, embedded in a metallic matrix. It is stated that the principal object of the Chesterfield invention is to improve the matrix of carbide-containing alloys to increase their strength and heat resistance and also to reduce their liability to flake, crack or splinter during use. The specifications state:

I have found that an alloy formed of hard carbides and a matrix composed of both cobalt and nickel as its basal components gives a much superior cutting tool to one made with either cobalt or nickel alone. [Emphasis added.]

The Chesterfield patents, applications filed in 1924, are not pioneers in the field of metal alloys containing cobalt and nickel. Fahrenwald patent 1,346,188, issued in 1920, discloses alloys for firearms and ordnance. Example (f) in the Fahrenwald patent teaches an alloy of any two iron group metals, plus tungsten or molybdenum, and small amounts of carbon, silicon, and manganese. The iron group metals include cobalt, nickel, and iron. The Fahrenwald teaching of any two iron group metals obviously includes cobalt and nickel, or cobalt and iron, or nickel and iron. Example (f) in the Fahrenwald patent teaches an alloy of iron or nickel, plus cobalt, chromium or tungsten, and carbon. It is clear that Fahrenwald taught the alloy art that two iron group metals, such as cobalt and nickel used together, provided an alloy better resistant to the high temperatures and strains of ordnance devices than an alloy containing cobalt or nickel alone as the basal component. The Fahrenwald alloys’ inclu[842]*842sion of chromium group metals, such as chromium, tungsten, and molybdenum, and the inclusion of small amounts of carbon, provided an alloy having hard carbides embedded in a matrix of cobalt and nickel. The ranges disclosed in this Fahrenwald patent include specific alloys within the broad ranges recited in the two Chesterfield claims in suit. The claims in suit are invalid because they are so broad as to cover alloys disclosed and taught by a prior patent.

A second Fahrenwald patent, 1,357,550, issued in 1919, also discloses an alloy of one or more iron group metals, plus chromium and molybdenum or tungsten, and plus carbon. This alloy is said to be chemically resistant and sufficiently strong to resist accidental breakage. The ranges specified in Fahrenwald 1,357,550 include alloys coming within the ranges recited in both claim 5 of the ’934 patent and claim 4 of the ’935 patent.

..Haynes patent 1,150,113', issued in 1915, discloses alloys of cobalt, nickel (replacing iron), chromium, other chromium group metals, and carbon. The alloys are said to have sufficient hardness for saws and similar tools. The ranges specified in the Haynes patent include alloys within the ranges recited in claim 5 of the ’934 patent. The Haynes patent does not teach the use of at least 7 per cent molybdenum as recited in claim 4 of the ’935 patent.

An earlier Haynes patent, 1,057,423, issued in 1913, discloses tool alloys of cobalt with any two metals in the chromium, tungsten, and molybdenum group. These alloys did not include nickel. This early Haynes patent was held to be infringed by a Chesterfield alloy including cobalt, nickel, chromium, tungsten, carbon, and impurities. See Haynes Stellite Co. v. Chesterfield, 8 F. 2d 765, and 22 F. 2d 635. The Chesterfield alloy held to infringe Haynes had a composition within the ranges recited in claim 5 of the ’934 patent here in suit.

Austrian patent 80,117, issued in 1918, discloses cutting tool alloys having a matrix of metals from the iron group alloyed with one another, and having hard borides or sili-cides embedded in the matrix.

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

Related

Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck Kgaa
331 F.3d 860 (Federal Circuit, 2003)
Messerschmidt v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 1 (Federal Claims, 1993)
De Graffenried v. United States
20 Cl. Ct. 458 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Deuterium Corp. v. United States
19 Cl. Ct. 624 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.
733 F.2d 858 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Pitcairn v. United States
547 F.2d 1106 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Leesona Corp. v. United States
530 F.2d 896 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Autogiro Company of America v. The United States
384 F.2d 391 (Court of Claims, 1967)
Application of David Neville Kirk and Vladimir Petrow
376 F.2d 936 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Yosemite Chemical Company v. The United States
360 F.2d 948 (Court of Claims, 1966)
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. United States
339 F.2d 654 (Court of Claims, 1964)
Kaz Manufacturing Co. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
211 F. Supp. 815 (S.D. New York, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 F. Supp. 371, 141 Ct. Cl. 838, 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 445, 1958 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesterfield-v-united-states-cc-1958.