Pugh v. Roe

440 F. Supp. 638, 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14521
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedAugust 11, 1977
DocketCiv. A. 74-202
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 440 F. Supp. 638 (Pugh v. Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pugh v. Roe, 440 F. Supp. 638, 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14521 (W.D. La. 1977).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W. EUGENE DAVIS, District Judge.

This is a suit for injunctive relief and damages sought as a result of alleged infringement of two patents. The trial on validity and infringement was completed on July 21, ■ 1977. Previously an evidentiary hearing was held on defendants’ special defenses of laches and estoppel, which were overruled.

I. GENERAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Billy Gene Pugh, is the holder of the two patents involved in this suit. The first patent, # 2,827,325, (hereinafter referred to as Patent 325) covers a personnel and cargo landing net. 1

The second patent, # 3,165,346 (hereinafter referred to as Patent 346) is a combination patent on a device which adds a stabilizer to the personnel and cargo landing net covered by the earlier Patent 325. 2

Defendant, Charles H. Roe, operating through his corporation, Life Saving Equipment Repair Company, Inc., manufactured *639 and sold stabilized personnel nets from 1968 to present.

During the mid-1950’s, plaintiff, a resident of Corpus Christi, Texas, was engaged in the shipbuilding business and owned and operated crewboats serving the offshore industry.

A serious accident, resulting in injuries and death, occurred on an offshore rig, the MR. GUS, in March, 1955, while personnel were being transferred from a vessel to a rig. The owner of the MR. GUS consulted Pugh and asked that he attempt to devise a safe method to transfer personnel and equipment between vessels and offshore drilling rigs.

Pugh designed a rope basket and on October 11, 1955, submitted a pro se application for a patent on the device.

• Pugh, in his pro se application, disclosed a rope cage consisting of upper and lower spreader rings connected by vertical lines which in turn were connected with horizontal rope lacings. The drawing attached to the application depicted a basket cylindrical in shape.

Pugh, in his original application, claimed:

“The combination of ropes, or lines spread with metal hoop or rings and secured together so as to form a cage or shape whereby men and cargo can be transferred safely to and from one level to another and flexible enough to allow a quick entrance and exit especially from one floating or moving object to another object either floating or fixed.” 3

Pugh’s original application was rejected for lack of formality. 4

Following this rejection, Pugh engaged a patent attorney, who filed an amended application describing the claims of the inventor in more precise terms. 5

Patent 325 issued on March 13, 1958. 6

Pugh began producing the cylindrical nets in 1956 and met with considerable commercial success.

During 1958, in response to customer demand, Pugh changed the shape of his net from cylindrical to conical. In the cylindrical net, the diameter of the top and bottom rings were the same. In the conical net, the base ring was larger in diameter than the top ring and the lines sloped upward from the base ring to make their connection with the top ring.

This change in configuration was made so that personnel could more safely ride on the outside of the net during transfer.

In 1961, Roe .was engaged in the business of renovating and repairing life floats, life ring buoys, life preservers and other safety equipment. He later organized Life Saving Equipment Repair Company, Inc., and about this, same time began repairing Pugh *640 nets. His initial personnel net repair activities consisted of replacing the netting and adding canvas wraparounds to the rings. Sometime later he began straightening, sandblasting and painting the rings of used personnel nets. In 1966, Mr. Roe constructed his first stabilizer assembly for use with a personnel net. In 1968, Roe began the manufacture of a complete net with new or rebuilt rings. Since that time, defendants have developed a substantial business volume from manufacture and sale of new stabilized personnel nets.

II. PATENT 325

Defendants deny the validity of this patent and also deny that they infringed the patent. Defendants also assert the defense of file wrapper estoppel.

A. VALIDITY OF PATENT 325

Defendants assert that the invention disclosed in this patent was obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

I conclude that the personnel and cargo net disclosed and claimed in Patent 325 was a non-obvious advance in the art.

This conclusion was supported by defendants’ expert, Dr. J. V. Pennington.

The cargo net depicted in Defendants’ Exhibit 209-A did not render the Pugh net obvious. 7

Plaintiff produced convincing evidence of a critical need by the offshore oil industry for a safer means of transferring personnel between vessels and platforms. The evidence also established that the Pugh net fulfilled that need. Several representatives of the offshore oil industry testified unequivocally that the Pugh net represented a significant improvement over older methods used to transfer personnel. Prior to the advent of the Pugh net, personnel were required to either swing on a single line or ride a cargo net similar to the net depicted in defense Exhibit 209-a. The Pugh net, with certain modifications and improvements, continues to be almost universally used in the offshore oil industry to transfer personnel between vessels and platforms in moderate to heavy seas.

Defendants have failed to establish that the Pugh personnel net disclosed in Patent 325 was obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 or under the tests enunciated in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966).

B. INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT 325

The defendants contend, first, that they did not infringe this patent because the Roe net uses tapered ropes instead of vertical ropes. Defendants argue that the net disclosed in Patent 325 is a cylindrical net with vertical ropes or lines rather than a net conical in shape. Defendants argue, primarily from language contained in the file wrapper, that “vertical” and “longitudinal” were used synonymously and the net as claimed is limited to a cylindrical net with vertical lines.

Defendants’ expert, Dr.

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

Related

A. Stucki Co. v. Schwam
634 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.
557 F. Supp. 739 (S.D. Texas, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
440 F. Supp. 638, 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-roe-lawd-1977.