Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States

432 F.2d 787, 193 Ct. Cl. 140, 167 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 56
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 16, 1970
DocketNo. 294-65
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 787 (Dresser Industries, Inc. 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
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 432 F.2d 787, 193 Ct. Cl. 140, 167 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 56 (cc 1970).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner James F. Davis with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Bule 134(h). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on July 15, 1970. The plaintiff and the defendant each filed a notice of intention to except to the commissioner’s findings, opinion and recommended conclusion of law; however, on August 25,1970, they filed a joint motion withdrawing their notices of intention to except and requesting that the court adopt the commissioner’s findings of fact, opinion and recommended conclusion of law as the basis for its judgment in this case. On August 31, 1970, the third-party defendant, B. H. Baker & Company, Inc., filed a “motion” stating that it concurs in the result that the petition should be dismissed but that it does not concur in the reasons for dismissal. The time for filing notices of intention to except under the rules of the court has now expired and, the case has been submitted to the court without oral argument.

Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, it hereby adopts the same, as hereinafter set forth, as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, the court concludes as a matter of law that claims 1, 2 and 6 of U.S. Patent 2,738,995, which are the only claims now at issue in this case, are not infringed and the petition is dismissed.

OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

Davis, Commissioner:

This is a patent suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 to recover “reasonable and entire compensation” for alleged unauthorized use by the United States of the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent 2,738,995, entitled “Pipe Coupling with Multipart Clamp.” The patent, owned by plaintiff, issued in 1956 on an application filed in 1953 by Eoger E. Bisley and Howard L. Hoke. Only the [143]*143issue of liability is before the court; accounting, if any, is deferred to later proceedings. The patent relates to a pipe coupling for large-diameter pipe. There are seven claims. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are in issue.

Pursuant to notice under former Eule 23 (new Eule 41), several of the Government’s suppliers entered the suit as third-party defendants. One of the suppliers, E. H. Baker & Company, Inc. (hereafter “Baker”), which made the accused devices, participated in the trial and filed proposed findings of fact and a brief. Defendants say that claims 1, 2 and 6 are invalid, not infringed and are unenforceable. For reasons discussed below, the claims are held not infringed.

Baehgrownd and 'patent in suit

The invention is directed to the problem of coupling together the ends of large-diameter pipe, e.g., pipe having a diameter of 24 inches or more. Large-diameter pipe raises special coupling problems. For one thing, it is difficult to seal up the gaskets of large couplings to prevent fluid leakage, particularly if the coupling is to be subjected to any axial, rotational or bending movement. Also, large-diameter couplings, because of their weight and size, present problems of shipping, handling, installing, and maintaining. To meet such problems, plaintiff developed the coupling of the patent in suit. Described in detail (and with diagrams) in findings 5 and 6, the coupling, in essence, has three components: (a) a sleeve, or middle ring, which fits over the pipe ends, (b) a pair of gaskets (rubber or the like), one at each end of the middle ring, and (c) a number of clamping devices, called followers which press against and seal the gaskets between the middle ring and the pipe ends, thereby to prevent leakage of fluid in the pipes. Middle ring sleeves and gaskets were old when the invention was made. The novelty of plaintiff’s device is in the design of the followers. As stated in the patent specification:

* * * the coupling * * * [includes] followers which are made up of a plurality of relatively small sections that are manufactured ana shipped separately and assembled when being installed on the pipe. The sections are constructed to be assembled in such manner that [144]*144when the followers are drawn toward the middle ring by bolts or like compression means, rolling of the followers is positively prevented while at the same time adequate gasket pressure is obtained at all points. The follower sections are characterized by a construction which includes torque arms which are adapted to bear against the outer surface of the middle ring to oppose the turning moment which tends to roll the followers. It is a feature of the invention that, when assembled on the pipe, the sections of the follower are individually adjustable so as to make possible the application of uniform gasket pressure all around the circumference of the coupling. Moreover, if a leak should occur at one section, that section can be tightened to correct the leak without disturbing the other sections and without interrupting service in the pipe line.. Since the couplings are made up of relatively small pieces, they can be more easily manufactured, shipped, handled and installed than has heretofore been possible. In addition, the nature of certain parts is such that standard parts can be made up in large quantity and kept in stock, to be used as required in making, up couplings of. different sizes. The cost of production is thereby materially reduced.

The patent specification teaches two types of follower construction. In one embodiment (the “first embodiment”), the followers comprise single-piece U-shaped lugs with arms of unequal length. The shorter arms, called follower bars, press against and seal the gaskets. The longer arms, called torque arms, rest against the middle ring. The lugs are joined in pairs by nuts and bolts, one lug of each pair being at either end of the middle ring. Pairs of lugs are placed adjacent to one another circumferentially around the middle ring so as to form a substantially continuous ring pressing against and sealing the gaskets. The specification notes:

* * * The follower bar portions of successive sections are disposed end to end and may either be in actual contact or spaced slightly from one another, it being understood that a certain spacing is permissible without giving rise to objectionable cold-flow of the gasket material into the spaces between the follower bar portions. * * *

In the other embodiment of the invention (the “second embodiment”), the followers are of somewhat different de[145]*145sign. Rather than being a series of single-piece U-sbaped lugs, the followers comprise (a) circular bars which press directly against the gaskets at either end of the middle ring, and (b) a number of L-shaped pressure plates which bear against the circular bars to hold them in place. The pressure plates, like the U-shaped lugs of the first embodiment, are arranged in pairs circumferentially around the middle ring; and each pair of plates is held together by a nut and bolt. The shorter arm of each plate bears against one of the circular bars; and the longer arm serves as a torque arm to prevent roll-over of the plates when plate pairs are drawn together by tightening the nuts and bolts. The circular bar is segmented into three pieces of 120° circumferential extent each, though the specification notes that the bar can be a single piece or segmented into two or more pieces. The specification, as filed, notes:

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

Related

IP Innovation L.L.C. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
424 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
73 F. Supp. 2d 698 (W.D. Texas, 1999)
Messerschmidt v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 1 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Collier v. Airtite, Inc.
697 F. Supp. 1457 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
Lemelson v. United States
14 Cl. Ct. 318 (Court of Claims, 1988)
Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States
10 Cl. Ct. 713 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
566 F. Supp. 419 (D. South Carolina, 1983)
Custer v. United States
622 F.2d 554 (Court of Claims, 1980)
Teledyne McCormick Selph v. United States
558 F.2d 1000 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Leesona Corp. v. United States
530 F.2d 896 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States
432 F.2d 787 (Third Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
432 F.2d 787, 193 Ct. Cl. 140, 167 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dresser-industries-inc-v-united-states-cc-1970.