Electro Metallurgical Co. v. Krupp Nirosta Co.

33 F. Supp. 324, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 541, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3075
CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware
DecidedMay 15, 1940
Docket1254
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 33 F. Supp. 324 (Electro Metallurgical Co. v. Krupp Nirosta Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Electro Metallurgical Co. v. Krupp Nirosta Co., 33 F. Supp. 324, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 541, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3075 (D. Del. 1940).

Opinion

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity under section 4915, U.S.R.S., as amended, 35 U.S.C. A. § 63, for a decree that Electro Metallurgical Company, plaintiff, is entitled “to receive a patent” for the invention specified in claims 1, 2 and 9 of the patent awarded to Schafmeister, defendant’s assignor.

Paul Schafmeister originally was a codefendant. He filed a disclaimer in this court and the bill of complaint was dismissed as to him.

*325 Plaintiff, Electro Metallurgical Company, is the owner of patent application serial No. 593,928 filed by plaintiffs Frederick M. Becket and Russell Franks on February 18, 1932. Defendant, Krupp Nirosta Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation and is owner of application serial No. 550,288 filed by Paul Schafmeister on July 11, 1931. In the oath accompanying his application reference is made to the fact that a corresponding German application had been filed on July 21, 1930.

Interference was declared in the United States Patent Office between the above applications and resulted in a decision by the Examiner of Interferences thereafter affirmed by the Board of Appeals awarding priority of invention to Schafmeister and refusing to award priority of invention to Becket and Franks. Plaintiffs did not appeal from the decision to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals but on March 8, 1938, brought this suit.

State of the Art

Both patent office tribunals adopted the. following as an appropriate description of the state of the art:

“The common invention here in controversy relates to the prevention of ‘inter-granular corrosion’ in austenitic chromium nickel steels. When ordinary austenitic chromium nickel steels of the ‘stainless’ varieties are heated to within a range of temperatures between 400° C. and 900° C. (the exact temperatures depending upon the composition of the steel) they lose their resistance to corrosive media, and such media attack the steels in a peculiar manner: The attack is most rapid along the boundaries of the individual crystalline grains of the metal. The heating may occur, for example, during welding, annealing, or use in heated chemical apparatus, and the corrosion may be so severe that the steel disintegrates to a powder. The severity of the attack in ordinary austenitic chromium nickel steels depends upon a number of factors: some compositions are less resistant than others, and for any given composition there is a characteristic range of temperatures which produces severe damage more readily than other temperatures. The loss of corrosion resistance also depends on the time of heating at the damaging temperatures, and the amount of attack depends also on the nature of the corrosive agent and the length of time it has been in contact with the metal.
“Each of the interfering applications discloses the discovery that the alloyed addition of columbium, or tantalum, or mixtures of columbium or tantalum, to austenitic chromium nickel steels of the ‘stainless’ type inhibits the above-described loss of corrosion resistance of the steels upon prolonged holding at temperatures in the neighborhood of 500° C.”

The problem to which both parties addressed themselves was the prevention of this “intergranular corrosion”. Thus the invention in issue relates to a known austenitic granular nickel steel alloy. This alloy is substantially proof against surface corrosion. However, it is not proof against intergranular corrosion, if the alloy has first been subjected to a certain range of temperatures (deleterious range of 500° to 900° C.) and is simultaneously, or thereafter, exposed to a corrosive treatment. The alloy is known as “18-8” steel because it contains about 18% of chromium and 8% of nickel. Intergranular corrosion attacks the boundaries of the metal grains, thus weakening the alloy and causing leakage. The express purpose of the invention of the parties is to prevent this intergranular corro.sion.

Counts in Issue

The interference involved 10 counts but plaintiffs brought this suit with respect only to counts 1, 2 and 9. These counts read as follows:

“1. A corrosion-resisting steel containing about 18% chromium, about 8% nickel, .07% to .2% carbon and from 0.3% to 2.5% of an additional material acting to lessen materially loss of corrosion resistance on prolonged holding at 500° C., the balance substantially all iron, said additional material consisting substantially all of columbium.
“2. A corrosion-resisting steel containing about 12% to 30% chromium, about 7% to 25% nickel, about 0.07% to 0.2% carbon, and from 0.3% to 2.5% of an additional material acting to lessen materially loss of corrosion resistance on prolonged holding at 500° C., the balance substantially all iron, said additional material consisting substantially all of columbium.”
“9. A metal article which in its normal use is subjected to active corrosive influences while the metal in at least part *326 of the article is in a condition resulting from heating at ranges within the carbide precipitation range (approximately ■500° to 800° C.) without subsequent heating at substantially higher temperatures, said article being resistant to said corrosive influences and composed of a corrosion-resisting austenitic steel, the iron of which is substantially all in the gamma form, containing about 12% to 30% chromium, about 7% to 25% nickel, about 0.07% to 0.2% carbon, and from 0.3% to 2.5% of an additional material consisting substantially all of columbium and tantalum, the balance substantially all iron.”

The Invention

The alloy of the 18-8 type is known as a “noble” metal.- It resists surface corrosion and is popularly known as stainless steel. Dr. Benno Strauss of Krupp’s at Essen, Germany, invented this austenitic 18-8 corrosion resisting steel about 1912. It was soon discovered that when steel was welded at the welding temperatures of 500° C. to 800° C. and the steel so welded was brought in contact with acids it corroded and eventually disintegrated. This occurred in breweries, in apparatus used in refining gasoline and in many other commercial uses. Here was a problem of the first water. Dr. Strauss again came to the fore and announced at a meeting of scientists in Brussels in 1928 that the presence of carbon in the steel was the cause of the corrosion. He suggested that the carbon content be reduced to less than .07%. However, this process proved costly and difficult.

Working with Strauss at Krupp’s were Dr. Houdremont and Dr. Schafmeister. They tackled the problem in another way. They suggested that the metal titanium be added to the melt to counteract the carbon, producing a titanium carbide. By this procedure the trouble maker was eliminated. Becket and Franks learned of this treatment in America and started their staff of chemists to work. In plaintiff’s “Table F” appended to plaintiff’s brief is a corrosion test on the steel containing titanium at high temperatures showing that they were following the teaching of the German metallurgists. The titanium invention was made in 1929 and was embodied in a patent application introduced as evidence in this case.

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

Related

Sydney Archer v. Domenick Papa
265 F.2d 954 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)
E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
120 F. Supp. 697 (District of Columbia, 1954)
Kraft Foods Co. v. Walther Dairy Products
118 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1954)
Konet v. Haskins
179 F.2d 1003 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1950)
General Electric Co. v. Hygrade Sylvania Corporation
61 F. Supp. 476 (S.D. New York, 1944)
Jacobs v. Buxton
135 F.2d 237 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 F. Supp. 324, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 541, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electro-metallurgical-co-v-krupp-nirosta-co-ded-1940.