Stukenborg v. Teledyne, Inc.

299 F. Supp. 1152, 161 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13214
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 24, 1969
DocketCiv. A. No. 67-1294
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 299 F. Supp. 1152 (Stukenborg v. Teledyne, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stukenborg v. Teledyne, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 1152, 161 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13214 (C.D. Cal. 1969).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PREGERSON, District Judge.

Defendant, Teledyne, Inc., filed a motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 1968. Plaintiffs filed their opposition and defendant filed a reply.. Oral argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 7, 1968, and the matter was submitted to the Court for its decision. Having considered the pleadings and papers on file and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Plaintiffs, Louis C. Stukenborg and Harold V. Utterback are citizens of the United States residing in Memphis, Tennessee. Plaintiff, Associated Aircraft Industries is a partnership of the State of Tennessee, and is composed of Elmer S. Eddins, James D. Nunnally, David A. Nunnally, Alice N. Smith, and Betty G. Nease. Defendant is a Delaware Corporation with its regular and established place of business within this judicial district.

This is an action for contributory patent infringement and inducement of infringement arising under 35 U.S.C'. §§ 281 and 283. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

Plaintiffs Stukenborg and Utterback are, and at all relevant times have been, owners of United States Patent No. 2,-843,408 [hereinafter referred to as the 408 patent], issued on July 15, 1958. Plaintiff Associated Aircraft Industries is the exclusive licensee under the 408 patent with the right to grant sublicenses. Plaintiffs claim that defendant has been contributing to the infringment of the 408 patent by selling components that constitute a material part of the invention, knowing that the components would be used in an infringement of the patent.

The 408 patent labels the invention as “Lock for Turnbuckles.” The relevant components of the turnbuckle assembly [1154]*1154described in the patent are the turnbuckle barrel or sleeve, the turnbuckle end pieces, and a wire clip which is used to lock the barrel and the end pieces so that the end pieces cannot rotate in relation to the barrel and to each other.1 Plaintiffs brought suit against the United States in the Court of Claims on this same patent, on the grounds of infringement, and the Court of Claims upheld the patent as valid. Stukenborg v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 738, 372 F.2d 498 (1967). The history of the search for an effective means for locking a turnbuckle assembly and the success of the invention embodied in the 408 patent are described in that opinion,2 and therefore will not be repeated here.

Defendant sells barrels and end pieces conforming to the barrel and end pieces shown in the diagram included with the 408 patent, Appendix D. Defendant does not make the wire clips shown in the patent diagram, and those clips which defendant has sold that conform to the clips pictured in the patent diagram were purchased by defendant from a sub-licensee of plaintiff Associated Aircraft Industries. Defendant claims that the 408 patent is invalid, or, if it is valid, then it gives plaintiffs a patent monopoly only on the wire locking clip and not on the corresponding barrel and end pieces.

There is no dispute that claims 1-4 of the 408 patent are directed to and cover only the wire locking clip, and the validity of claims 1 — 4 is not an issue in this action. Plaintiffs contend and defendant denies that claims 5-7 of the 408 patent cover the whole turnbuckle assembly as combination claims. Defendant argues that claims 5-7 of the 408 patent describe the barrel and end pieces to give the background or show the environment in which the locking clip is to be used, rather than to claim the combination. All parties agree that the proper construction of claims 5-7 is a question of law rather than a question of fact.3

This Court concludes as a matter of law, that claims 5-7 of the 408 patent relate to the wire locking clip and are not claims for the complete turnbuckle assembly. This Court concludes in the alternative that if claims 5-7 are to be read as claims for the complete turnbuckle assembly, then as a matter of law, based on the uncontradicted facts before the Court, claims 5-7 are invalid.

CLAIMS 5-7 OF THE 408 PATENT ARE CLAIMS FOR THE WIRE LOCKING CLIP RATHER THAN FOR THE TURNBUCKLE ASSEMBLY

Claims 5-7 of the 408 patent are not clearly drafted and therefore give rise to this dispute over their meaning. The first sixteen lines of each of claims 5-7 are identical and read as follows:

“I claim:
In a turnbuckle assembly which includes a hollow, internally threaded barrel, threaded rod ends threadedly engaged with said barrel, said rod ends being respectively longitudinally grooved and said barrel having complementary grooves registered with said rod end grooves, said barrel being transversely apertured substantially at its longitudinal center, resilient wire-like lock clip means for locking said assembly against relative rotation comprising an elongated locking portion lying in and extending inwardly throughout the majority of the length of complementarily registered barrel and rod end grooves, a stem integrally connected at its outer end with the outer end of said locking portion lying along the exterior of said barrel and biased toward the surface of said barrel by the resiliency of said clip means, an anchor portion connected to the inner end of said stem, * * * [1155]*1155[hereafter the language of each of the claims varies somewhat in the description of the anchor portion and its operation].”

Plaintiffs cite various statements in the file wrapper and in the specifications to show that claims 5-7 were considered as combination claims by the Patent Office and approved as such.4 Plaintiffs also point out that the difference in form between claims 1-4 and claims 5-7 in itself indicates that claims 5-7 were designed to claim something over and above the wire locking clip, which was adequately covered in claims 1-4.5 Defendant, on the other hand, cites different statements in the specifications and in the file wrapper of the 408 patent to show that the only invention claimed in the 408 patent was the wire locking clip.6

It is difficult to determine whether the patent examiner who processed the 408 patent considered claims 5-7 as further claims relating to the wire locking clip alone or as claims for the combination turnbuckle assembly. But the understanding or intention of the patentee or the patent examiner is not determinative here, for patent claims are to be restricted to their actual language.7

Examining the form of claims 5-7, one finds that the claims do not begin with a description of the item(s) being claimed. Instead they begin with a preamble describing the environment in which the claimed item(s) operate. The preamble begins with the words “In a turnbuckle assembly which includes * * The words of the preamble do not describe what is being claimed. The preamble tells where the claimed item(s) will be used, and therefore limit the claim to the environment described.8

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 F. Supp. 1152, 161 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stukenborg-v-teledyne-inc-cacd-1969.