Home/Ninth Circuit/D & H Electric Company, a Corporation v. M. Stephens Mfg., Inc., a Corporation and Jack McLoughlin Doing Business as McLoughlin Sales

D & H Electric Company, a Corporation v. M. Stephens Mfg., Inc., a Corporation and Jack McLoughlin Doing Business as McLoughlin Sales

233 F.2d 879
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 23, 1956
Docket14399
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 233 F.2d 879 (D & H Electric Company, a Corporation v. M. Stephens Mfg., Inc., a Corporation and Jack McLoughlin Doing Business as McLoughlin Sales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
D & H Electric Company, a Corporation v. M. Stephens Mfg., Inc., a Corporation and Jack McLoughlin Doing Business as McLoughlin Sales, 233 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

An action alleging patent infringement was brought in the District Court by the D & H Electric Company against M. Stephens Mfg., Inc. and Jack MeLoughlin, d/b/a McLotighlin Sales. From a judgment holding no infringement, plaintiff appeals. No appeal is taken by defendants from that portion of the judgment which held plaintiff’s patent valid.

The patent in suit is for a coupling device used in connecting spiraled flexible conduits (which carry electric wires) to junction boxes. Appellant, as assignee of the patent, has, since 1946, made and sold over four million of said coupling devices. The device is described in its claim, as finally allowed by the Patent Office, as follows:

“In a coupling for spirally wound, flexible conduits, a tubular member having means at one end adapted to be affixed to the wall of a junction box or the like, the other end of said coupling being insertable within the end of a conduit and having a series of ribs extending substantially at right angles to the major axis of said tubular member and adapted to engage the convolutions of the conduit, said ribs being sequentially disposed in staggered relation along the outer surface of the conduit-engaging portion of said coupling, so as to define a spiral having a greater helical angle than the normal helical angle of the conduit.” [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the ribs extend partially around the tubular member of the coupling so as not to fit the convolutions of the conduit as a thread, but the two to engage as would a nut with a thread different from that of the bolt and, owing to the fact that the tube is made up of twisted steel ribbons the forcing of the mismatched threads expands the tube so as to allow the insertion to “jump” the threads. Thus, the patent in suit has basically two major concepts. It covers a combination of elements in a tubular member that has (a) a series of ribs extending substantially at right angles to its major axis and (b) said ribs defining *881 a spiral having a greater helical angle than the normal helical angle of the convolutions of the conduit. Considering the drawing set out in the margin, 1 it *882 will be’ seen that the ribs (A) are disposed so as to form a helical angle (B) which is greater than the helical angle of the conduit (C). Electrical conduit in general use is formed by spirally convolving or wrapping long strips of metal of “S" shaped cross section to form a flexible tube. Since the convolutions engage each other—but the engagement is not fast—the conduit is axially expandable or capable of being forced to a greater than normal size, and it is this property which makes possible the successful operation of the patented article in suit. The helical angle formed by the ribs on the projecting tube of the coupling device is greater than the helical angle of the convolutions of the conduit. Therefore, the insertion of the projecting tube in the expandable conduit, and the twisting of the conduit, causes the ribs on the tube and the hollow of the conduit to engage, with pressure, and hold fast. Such operation not only permits easy installation of the device, but overcomes the objection to many former couplings which come loose.

*881

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

Related

Grain Processing Corporation v. American Maize-Products Company
932 F.2d 981 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Input Graphics, Inc.
545 F. Supp. 165 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Omark Industries, Inc. v. Carlton Co.
458 F. Supp. 449 (D. Oregon, 1978)
Norton Company, Appellant-Cross v. Carborundum Company, Appellee-Cross
530 F.2d 435 (First Circuit, 1976)
Automated Building Components, Inc. v. Trueline Truss Co.
318 F. Supp. 1252 (D. Oregon, 1970)
Uncas Manufacturing Co. v. McGrath-Hamin, Inc.
265 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Rhode Island, 1967)
M. O. S. Corporation, a Corporation v. John I. Haas Co., Inc., a Corporation
332 F.2d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 1964)
Bacon American Corp. v. Super Mold Corp. of California
229 F. Supp. 998 (N.D. California, 1964)
Oregon Saw Chain Corporation, a Corporation v. McCulloch Motors Corporation, a Corporation
323 F.2d 758 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
Karl E. Stiegele and Speidel Corporation v. J. M. Moore Import-Export Co., Inc., Moore Products Corporation and Joseph Mitchell Moore
312 F.2d 588 (Second Circuit, 1963)
King v. Anthony Pools, Inc.
202 F. Supp. 426 (S.D. California, 1962)
Mattel, Inc. v. Louis Marx & Co.
200 F. Supp. 593 (S.D. California, 1961)
Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Research Instrument Corp.
196 F. Supp. 138 (S.D. California, 1961)
Aldridge v. General Motors Corporation
178 F. Supp. 839 (S.D. California, 1959)
James Moon, Edmond M. Wagner and Philip Subkow v. Cabot Shops, Inc., and Howard Supply Company, Cabot Shops, Inc., and Howard Supply Company v. James Moon, Edmond M. Wagner and Philip Subkow
270 F.2d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 1959)
Moon v. Cabot Shops, Inc.
270 F.2d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 1959)
Dick E. Stearns and the D. E. Stearns Company, a Partnership Composed of Dick E. Stearns and Ellen Belson Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor, a Corporation, John P. Rasor and Leo H. Tinker, Tinker & Rasor, a Corporation, John P. Rasor and Leo H. Tinker v. Dick E. Stearns and the D. E. Stearns Company, a Partnership Composed of Dick E. Stearns and Ellen Belson Stearns
252 F.2d 589 (Ninth Circuit, 1958)
Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor
252 F.2d 589 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)
Belden v. Air Control Products, Inc.
144 F. Supp. 248 (W.D. Michigan, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-h-electric-company-a-corporation-v-m-stephens-mfg-inc-a-ca9-1956.