Control Components, Inc., and Richard E. Self v. Valtek, Inc. And Alpha Engineering Company

609 F.2d 763, 204 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 785, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21492
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 9, 1980
Docket79-1626
StatusPublished
Cited by56 cases

This text of 609 F.2d 763 (Control Components, Inc., and Richard E. Self v. Valtek, Inc. And Alpha Engineering Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Control Components, Inc., and Richard E. Self v. Valtek, Inc. And Alpha Engineering Company, 609 F.2d 763, 204 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 785, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21492 (5th Cir. 1980).

Opinions

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge.

Defendants, Valtek, Inc., (Valtek) and Alpha Engineering Co., (Alpha) appeal from a district court judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding that they infringed [765]*765various claims of a United States patent on fluid control valves owned by Control Components, Inc. (CCI). We affirm.

Industrial Setting

Valtek and CCI manufacture industrial control valves used to regulate the flow of high pressure fluid in severe service applications. Conventional valves are unable to avoid two major problems associated with high pressure fluid flows: internal damage when the fluid is a vaporizable liquid and intense noise when the fluid is a gas.

Internal valve damage results from cavitation and erosion. Cavitation is a two-stage phenomenon beginning with the formation of vapor bubbles from a sudden reduction of pressure in a liquid flowing at high speed. The second stage of the cavitation process is the collapse or implosion of the vapor bubbles caused by deceleration of the fluid and a corresponding increase in pressure above its vapor point. Unable to exist at the higher pressure, the bubbles collapse with explosive energy, tearing away the interior surface of the valve. Erosion is the physical wearing away of metal as a result of liquid flowing at high velocity.

Severe noise accompanies the sonic and supersonic velocity of the fluid stream in gas applications. The noise can be so intense as to pose health problems for industry workers.

The Patent

In December, 1966, plaintiff, Richard Self, applied for a patent on an invention designed to minimize the internal damage associated with conventional control valves. After testing the structure with a gas in 1967 and discovering that the valve also moderated aerodynamic noise, Self filed a continuation-in-part of the prior application in May, 1968, now U.S. Patent 3,514,074 (THE PATENT), which was granted May 26, 1970. CCI is the exclusive licensee of the patent.

The major objects of the invention as recited in the patent are to “effect energy losses in high pressure flowing fluids . ., thus avoiding damage and erosion” and to limit “fluid velocity” while “quietly effex-ing energy losses.”

The Structure

The patented valve utilizes a stack of annular disks encircling a chamber in which a movable plug is lodged (see Figure 1). On the face of each disk are a large number of angular turn inducing grooves that produce resistance to fluid flow. A variety of possible configurations for the passageway grooves are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 3A, 4, and 5. When the disks are stacked one upon the other, “individual passageway grooves” are enclosed between their abutting faces and impart frictional resistance losses to the fluid as it flows through each groove. The position of the center plug may be varied causing fluid flow through more or fewer of the individual grooves.

As described more particularly in the patent claims which are the focus of this litigation, the device is:

1. . . .a rigid structure comprising a stack of members having abutting faces enclosing therebetween a plurality of individual passageway grooves angular between inlet and outlet ends thereof to turn the fluid and provide a substantially longer fluid flow length than the distance between the inlet and the outlet ends thereof, and each passageway groove having an effective long length to diameter ratio cooperating with the angular turn-inducing configuration thereof to impart high frictional resistance losses to fluid flow therethrough; and means for compelling flow of the fluid through said passageways whereby potential energy of the fluid will be dissipated and velocity of the fluid will be controlled.
16. A device according to claim 1, having in combination, a valve housing having a fluid passage of substantial cross-sectional flow area therethrough, said device comprising an annular structure mounted in said housing and across said passage to compel all fluid flowing [766]*766through said passage to travel there-through, and a valve plug movable in controlling relation reciprocably within said annular structure.
17. A combination according to claim 16, in which said annular structure comprises a stack of annular disks having said passageways in their faces and extending between and having openings at the inner and outer perimeters of the annular structure and adapted to be selectively opened and closed by movement of said plug in the annular structure.

The jury found that a valve manufactured by Valtek and marketed by Alpha infringed claim 17 of the patent.

The Accused Device

The Valtek valve also consists of a stack of annular disks surrounding an adjustable plug (see Figure 6). On the face of the Valtek disks are concentric grooves (see Figure 7). The grooves are cut successively deeper as they approach the circumference of the disks (see Figure 8). When the disks are stacked together they form a tooth-like passage as depicted in the cross-section diagram of Figure 8. Fluid flows from the center chamber radially outward, in a wave-like motion across the face of the disks. Promotional material emphasizes that the valve solves the cavitation problem because “pressure is reduced gradually across the faces of the disks without sharp pressure drop typical of conventional [valves].”

Case and Issues

Defendants appeal that portion of the judgment finding claim 17 of the patent valid and infringed; they also appeal that portion finding the intentional infringement of CCI’s trademark, DRAG.

Defendants argue that: (1) claim 17 of the patent is invalid; (2) the lower court erred in refusing to admit into evidence statements made under oath by Richard Self and patent office findings on obviousness; (3) if valid, claim 17 was not infringed; and (4) no substantial evidence supports the finding of trademark infringement.

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES I. Validity of the Patent.

A. Factors to be Considered.

A patent is invalid if the subject matter sought to be patented would have been “obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. “While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law” the determination of obviousness “lends itself to several basic factual inquiries.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 694, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); Swofford v.B&W, Inc., 395 F.2d 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 296, 21 L.Ed.2d 272 (1968); Robbins Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 554 F.2d 1289 (5th Cir. 1977). Factual questions properly resolved by the jury include “the scope and content of the prior art . differences between the prior art and the claims at issue . . . and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art . .” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. at 694. Skepticism of experts, commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and the failure of others are relevant secondary considerations. United States v. Adams,

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

Related

Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. Prudhomme
765 F. Supp. 1551 (N.D. Texas, 1991)
American Cyanamid Co. v. Gentex Corp.
641 F. Supp. 88 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd.
625 F. Supp. 48 (D. New Mexico, 1985)
Amoco Oil Co. v. Rainbow Snow
748 F.2d 556 (Tenth Circuit, 1984)
Peter M. Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
723 F.2d 1324 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
Schroeder v. Lotito
577 F. Supp. 708 (D. Rhode Island, 1983)
Wendy's International Inc. v. Big Bite, Inc.
576 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Ohio, 1983)
Burger King Corp. v. Mason
710 F.2d 1480 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
Lacoste Alligator, S.A. v. Bluestein's Men's Wear, Inc.
569 F. Supp. 491 (D. South Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 F.2d 763, 204 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 785, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/control-components-inc-and-richard-e-self-v-valtek-inc-and-alpha-ca5-1980.