Home/D. Maryland/Cummins Engine Company v. General Motors Corporation

Cummins Engine Company v. General Motors Corporation

299 F. Supp. 59
District Court, D. Maryland·Decided May 22, 1969·No. Civ. 15859·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

This is an action for infringement of certain claims of United States Letters Patent No. 3,110,293, issued November 12, 1963, on an application of Neville M. Reiners filed May 24, 1961 (the Reiners patent). Plaintiff, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (Cummins) is an Indiana corporation and has its principal place of business at Columbus, Indiana, where it manufactures diesel engines, primarily for use in trucks made by other manufacturers. Cummins is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the patent in suit and has been since the patent issued. Defendant, General Motors Corporation (General Motors), is a Delaware corporation and has its principal offices in Detroit, Michigan, and has numerous manufacturing, sales and service facilities located throughout the country. General Motors manufactures Toro-Flow engines at its GMC Truck and Coach Division in Pontiac, Michigan, and this division also has a regular and established place of business in Silver Spring, Maryland. Those ToroFlow engines are the accused engines in this proceeding. Defendant, McCallBoykin Truck, Inc. (McCall-Boykin), is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland, where it sells and services the .accused Toro-Flow engines.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1

A. Diesel and Gasoline Engine Technology.

The Reiners patent in suit concerns the open chamber type of diesel (or compression-ignition) engines. This class of diesel engines is characterized by a mode of combustion involving the direct injection of fuel into the cylinders of the engine. In other respects, however, the class shares certain common operating features with all other classes of diesel engines. On a broader level, the diesel engine itself differs from its predecessor, the conventional gasoline (or spark-ignition) engine, in some respects and is similar or identical in others. In order to assess the significance of the Reiners patent as it applies to one class of diesel engines, it is helpful to examine the similarities and differences that run through gasoline and diesel engine technology.

1. The Four-Stroke Cycle.

Basic to all these engines is a common four-stroke power cycle 2 operating with the same fundamental elements- — a piston, connecting rod, crankshaft, and cylinder head with intake and exhaust valves. Basic also is the kinematics, or mechanical operation, of the engines.

*62

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

Cummins Engine Company v. General Motors Corporation, 299 F. Supp. 59 (D. Md. 1969).

299 F. Supp. 59 (Cummins Engine Company v. General Motors Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goss International Americas, Inc. v. K & M Newspaper Services, Inc.
469 F. Supp. 2d 547 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.
620 F.2d 1247 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Sidney Manufacturing Corporation, Appellee-Cross-Appellant
594 F.2d 644 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)
Crane Co. v. Aeroquip Corporation
364 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Illinois, 1973)
Cleeton v. Hewlett-Packard Company
343 F. Supp. 1215 (D. Maryland, 1972)
Glen R. Hadfield v. Ryan Equipment Company
456 F.2d 1218 (Eighth Circuit, 1972)
Philips Electronic and Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal and Electronics Industries, Inc
450 F.2d 1164 (Third Circuit, 1971)
National Steel Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
313 F. Supp. 934 (D. Maryland, 1970)
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation and McCall Truck, Inc.
424 F.2d 1368 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)
Cummins Engine Co. v. General Motors Corp.
424 F.2d 1368 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)
Phillips Electronic & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal & Electronics Industries, Inc.
311 F. Supp. 17 (D. New Jersey, 1970)