Lanova Corp. v. National Supply Co.

30 F. Supp. 742, 43 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1869
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 21, 1939
DocketCiv. A. No. 44
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 F. Supp. 742 (Lanova Corp. v. National Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lanova Corp. v. National Supply Co., 30 F. Supp. 742, 43 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1869 (W.D. Pa. 1939).

Opinion

McVICAR, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, the owners of two United States patents numbered 1,803,262 and 1,954,082, brought this action for an accounting and for injunctive relief against the defendant, alleging that it had infringed said patents. The answer raised the issues of validity and infringement. A hearing was held. After hearing, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

Lanova Corporation, plaintiff, is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Long Island City, New York; Aero Aktiengesellschaft, plaintiff, is a stock corporation of Switzerland, located at Kussnacht on the Rigi; the National Supply Company, defendant, is a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

United States Letters Patent No. 1,803,-262, one of the two patents in suit, issued to said Aero Aktiengesellschaft on April 28, 1931, upon an application of Franz Lang, of Stuttgart, Germany, assignor to Aero Aktiengesellschaft, filed in the United States Patent Office on .March 11, 1926, based upon a patent application filed in Germany on February 13, 1926.

In October, 1937, said Aero Aktiengesellschaft, while possessed of said patent No. 1,803,262, granted to said Lanova Corporation the exclusive license right to its engine patents, including said patent No. 1,803,-262, with the right to grant simple, nontransferable sub-licenses thereunder, said right including the right to sue infringers of said engine patents, including said patent No. 1,803,262, in the United States; and said rights of said Lanova Corporation have ever since remained accordingly.

United States Letters Patent No. 1,954,-082, the other of the two patents in suit, issued to Lanova Aktiengesellschaft, a corporation of the principality of Liechtenstein, of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, on April 10, 1934, upon an application of Franz Lang, Munich, Germany, assignor to Lanova Aktiengesellschaft, filed in the United States Patent Office on January 22, 1932, based upon a patent application filed in Germany on January 24, 1931.

On April 17, 1937, said Lanova Aktiengesellschaft, while possessed of said patent No. 1,954,082, assigned the entire right, title and interest therein and thereto, to said Lanova Corporation, plaintiff, and said entire right, title and interest therein and thereto, have ever since remained accordingly.

[743]*743Said patents 1,803,262 and 1,954,082 are for certain improvements in the compression-ignition class of internal combustion engines. “Diesel” or “full Diesel” means an' engine of the compression-ignition class. Compression ignition is distinctive in its ignition of fuel by contact with air the temperature of which has been increased to above the ignition temperature of the fuel by compression by movement of the engine piston; readiness to ignite the fuel permeates the entire mass of air thus compressed, and the ignition of the fuel is thus directly dependent upon its injection into that mass; and fuel injection is directly related to engine crankshaft position.

Said Lanova Corporation employs a corps of technical men and it has a drafting room and laboratory where it is engaged in the design, building or rebuilding, and demonstration testing of example compression-ignition engines for its licensees or prospective licensees, mostly engine manufacturers operating under or considering operating under license agreements with said corporation. It derives its main revenue by way of royalties from its licensees under 'its patent rights.

Compression-ignition engines were originally relatively low speed engines and had always the advantages of higher economy than other classes of engines and of capability of using lower grade liquid fuels, but there were certain disadvantages indigenous to such engines which 1 became particularly manifest when attempts were made to go to higher speeds. The invention of the first patent in suit (1,803,262) came at a time when engines were changing from medium speed to higher speeds.

The engine described in patent No. 1,-803,262 is described therein as a “self-igniting oil motor.” The patent states: “This invention relates to self-igniting motors in which the chamber wherein the air is compressed by the piston on its compression-stroke is subdivided into at least two chambers which communicate by at least one aperture having a throttling cross-sectional area. One of the chambers at least is arrangedlo be reduced in size or volume as the compression proceeds so as to force a flow of compressed air into the other chamber or chambers through a throttling constriction of the aperture or communication. According to the invention the parts are so arranged and constructed that fuel injected into the chamber before the end of the compression-stroke in a direction toward, or practically toward, the constriction meets such air-flow in a funnel-shaped space tapering toward and arranged in advance of the constriction. More specifically, under this invention at least a portion of the walls of the compartment with fixed volume is arranged in a fixed relation to the cylinder of the motor and the compression is increased to such a degree, that the charge of mixed fuel and air, even at the normal starting of the cold engine, is ignited without requiring any auxiliary igniting device.”

The drawings contain seven forms of constructibn. The patent states relative to construction:

“In all seven modifications the cylinder is indicated by the reference character Z, the piston by a or a' respectively, the two compartments of the compression chamber by b and d and the fuel nozzle arranged on the cylinder by c. The two compartments b and d are connected with each other at least during the last part of the compression stroke by a throttling constriction f, which preferably is formed as short as possible.

“As shown, the fuel-nozzle c is arranged outside of and separate from the compartment b, which compartment is entirely imperforate, access thereto being only through the constriction f.

“The transit from the chamber d to the throttling constriction f is formed by a funnel-shaped mixing passage g, which latter materially assists in the ignition and combustion, as experience has shown. This funnel-shaped passage or mixing chamber, as shown, lies between the fuel-injector-nozzle c and the throttling constriction f and tapers from the nozzle c to the constriction f, the nozzle being at the widest portion of the funnel-shaped passage or chamber.”

The operation of the engine in accordance with Fig. 1 is stated in said patent as follows: “The air entering into the cylinder during the suction stroke is compressed during the next stroke, whereby a brisk flow of air through the throttling constriction f into the supplemental compartment b arranged on the cylinder is produced. The fuel nozzle c has the same longitudinal axis as said constriction, so that at least a portion of the fuel is injected into the core of the air current. This fuel injected through the nozzle towards the end of the compression stroke contacts already in the mixing funnel g, that means [744]*744before the constriction f, with the air flowing into the compartment b and being heated and ignited on account of the compression, the compressed air stored in said compartment b flowing through the constriction into contact with the mixture to support and maintain the combustion as the piston recedes.”

Plaintiffs declare upon and rely upon claims 1 and 2 of said patent.

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

Related

American Cyanamid Co. v. Hercules Inc.
260 F. Supp. 368 (D. Delaware, 1966)
Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp.
78 F. Supp. 588 (D. Delaware, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F. Supp. 742, 43 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanova-corp-v-national-supply-co-pawd-1939.