Radiator Specialty Company, a Corporation v. Richard Micek

327 F.2d 554
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 1, 1964
Docket18130_1
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 554 (Radiator Specialty Company, a Corporation v. Richard Micek) 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
Radiator Specialty Company, a Corporation v. Richard Micek, 327 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.

This is a patent and misuse of confidential information contest between the owners of two flushing devices in toilet tanks. Micek, plaintiff-appellee, owns POSITIVE FLUSH CONTROL. Radiator Specialty, defendant-appellant, owns SEAL-O-MATIC. Each is patented, Mi-cek filing first. The claims of each patent are set out in the appendix hereafter.

The district court has held claims 1 to 7 of the POSITIVE FLUSH CONTROL infringed by SEAL-O-MATIC and that there was a misuse of confidential information by SEAL-O-MATIC’S owners. Also, attorney fees were awarded Micek (POSITIVE) against Radiator Specialty (SEAL-O-MATIC). But the court denied Micek any relief on his claim of unfair competition. As is standard procedure in patent cases, amounts of damage remain for future detei-mination. We affirm the district court.

For many, many years the conventional outlet valve from the water closet to a toilet bowl involved a rubber ball on the bottom end of a perpendicular rod or wire (usually brass). In repose, the rubber ball sat in a collar on the top of the outlet pipe. If in good order, the ball sitting in the pipe collar blocked *555 the exit of water to the toilet bowl as long as desired. To activate the water and flush the bowl, one would press the conventional handle on the outside of the water closet. This would lift a lever which raised the rod and ball and let the water out. In due time, after the departure of the water, the ball, still on its rod, would drop down and seal up the outlet. Then the process of refilling the tank would begin. When filled, the incoming water would be cut off by the inlet valve and float ball, the familiar hollow brass sphere (now often plastic) on a stiff long wire or arm.

For residence use, the water tank type of bathroom fixture continues to be the conventional type, necessitating always inlet and outlet valves. As indicated, we deal here with the outlet valve.

Over the years, both inlet and outlet valves have been sources of trouble and the subject of attempts by the householder to fix them, or perhaps a hurried call for the plumber. Apparently the conventional rod apparatus has too much “play” in its permissible movement, although anything which has been standard so long must have some merit.

Of recent years, there has been a spate of new patents aimed at the outlet. Most seem to retain some sort of a ball to seat itself in the outlet pipe’s top collar. Adjacent to all outlet valves is an overflow drain pipe, which is convenient to fasten things to or around. Micek worked out a clamp bracket to go around the drain pipe. (Obviously that was easy.) The bottom of the clamp collar sits an inch or two above the bottom of the drain pipe. Then a yoke straddles the pipe. This is made of heavy wire which narrows as it reaches the area over the outlet collar. The rubber ball is suspended from the double arm formed by the yoke. Into the bracket the two wires turn as they are astraddle the pipe. Thus the pivot is formed by the two ends of the yoke as they hook into the bracket. At the loop on the yoke a chain is fastened which is connected to the conventional trip lever of the water closet. In use, when the chain lifts the ball and yoke out of the outlet collar the yoke and balls swing in a short are of approximately 90 degrees upward against the overflow pipe. (Thus, the movement contrasts from that of the usual vertical plunger and ball.) In due time, the arm yoke and ball swing down and the outlet pipe is again closed. Apparently both parties believe the device achieves a stability of function not known in the conventional type. The yokes of POSITIVE and of SEAL-O-MATIC are very, very much alike. The rubber ball itself, which is not part of the patent, fastens identically through the channel of the parallel arms. POSITIVE’S arms fasten into the clamp in behind the overflow pipe. SEAL-O-MATIC’s pivoting starts in the clamp at the point of maximum diameter of the pipe. The SEAL-O-MATIC device’s mounting is a little simpler, but if Micek’s patent is valid, copying in principal by Radiator Specialty seems obvious. We agree with the trial court that Radiator’s device infringes claims 1 to 7 of the Micek patent through .a substitution of equivalents.

We have traced through all of the prior art patents placed in evidence by the parties and we do not find Micek’s patent anticipated by any of them. The presumption of validity, to us, remains unimpaired. Broken up into little parts, there is nothing new about any feature. But it is the combination of many old elements that has created something new (for the moment at least) beyond the ordinary mechanic’s skill.

We find that the trial court's findings as to breach of a confidential relationship are well supported. There was something worse than merely tough competition. We hold that the principles of McKinzie v. Cline, 197 Or. 184, 252 P.2d 564, apply. At this point, it should be pointed out that any damage for this breach will probably all be included within the damage to be ascertained for the patent infringement.

Radiator objects to the award of attorney fees to Micek. As we analyze appellant’s objection thereto (although it may not concur in the analysis) it really *556 attacks the validity of the findings on the two causes of action which have been sustained. Of course, if someone has unwittingly infringed on another’s patent, we would not approve attorneys’ fees. But here there have been findings supported by substantial evidence that there was poaching on the product of Micek’s mind in a rather aggravated way. Under such findings, allowance of reasonable attorneys’ fees is within the discretion of the trial court.

The judgment and decree are affirmed.

APPENDIX

A. The Positive Flush Control Patent. The Claims passed by the patent office on February 19, 1957, on Micek’s patent are as follows:

“1. A valve ball mounting for a toilet flush tank having an overflow pipe and outlet provided with a valve ball seat, and a valve ball coacting with said seat, a hinge bracket mounted on said pipe, hinge means carried by the bracket, a resilient yoke straddling said pipe to extend at its forward end portion over said ball and having free rear ends held by the resiliency of the yoke in pivotal engagement with said hinge means, stop means on said bracket coacting with the rear ends of said yoke and disposed to space the rear end portions of the yoke away from said hinge means and limit the yoke against lateral play to swing in a straight path lying in a plane with the center of said seat, and means connecting the ball with the forward end portion of said yoke.
“2.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 F.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radiator-specialty-company-a-corporation-v-richard-micek-ca9-1964.