Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.

246 F. Supp. 104, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 572, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9895
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedJuly 19, 1965
DocketNo. 1176
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 F. Supp. 104 (Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., 246 F. Supp. 104, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 572, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9895 (W.D. Mo. 1965).

Opinion

DUNCAN, Senior Judge.

The plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, with its offices and principal place of business at Franklin Park, Illinois, instituted this suit against the defendant, a New York corporation, with a regular and established place of business at St. Joseph, Missouri, within the Western District of Missouri, under the Patent Laws of the United States, alleging among other things, that it was the owner of United States Patent No. 2,985,-936, issued on May 30,1961, to Bror Hill-berg, and entitled, “Hanger Assembly for Suspended Concrete Forms”, and Patent No. 2,985,937 issued on May 30,1961, to Bror Hillberg, and entitled, “Outside Hanger Assembly for Suspended Concrete Forms”.

Plaintiff alleged infringement of its patents and sought injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees. The patents will be referred to hereafter throughout this opinion, as Patents ’6 and ’7, as they were throughout the trial of the case.

In its Answer and Counterclaim, defendant admitted the jurisdiction of the court, the ownership of the patents by the plaintiff and denied infringement, alleged that the patents were invalid and void, and asked the court to so decree. To find lack of infringement by the defendant, and that plaintiff be enjoined from harassing the defendant.

Defendant bases its contention of invalidity on the grounds: (1) that the specifications and claims in both patents are vague, indefinite and unsupported in vital areas as well as prolix — (defined by the defendant as “excessively wordy”); (2) that they were unpatentable over the prior art and similar devices in general use by plaintiff and defendant prior to plaintiff’s patent, and (3) that they were void because of double patenting.

Defendant contends that plaintiff’s patent is anticipated by the prior art and cites as such prior art, British Patent No. 358,708; Mueller Patent No. 2,-215,972 (Defendant’s Exhibit P) and Dickman Patent No. 1,851,353 (Defendant’s Exhibit Q), and certain drawings referred to as the “Jablonski Drawings”.

Defendant in its brief does not seriously discuss the relative functions of the elements described in the various prior art patents as compared to the patented device or the accused device, with which we are here concerned.

The patented devices, “ ’6” and “ ’7” are generally referred to in the trade as the “90-90 Press Steel Hanger” (’6), and “90-45 Outside Hanger” (’7).

The application for both patents, issued on January 4, 1960 to Bror Hillberg and thereafter assigned to the plaintiff on May 30, 1961, stated:

“The present invention relates to hanger assemblies for concrete forms, such assemblies being employed for hanging concrete forms from bridge superstructures or the like. The invention has particular reference to a novel form of hanger assembly which, when under load in an actual installation, is devoid of destructive torsional, bending and other stresses which frequently result in disruptive strain In connection with conventional hanger assemblies designed for the same purpose.”

The specifications are numerous and lengthy. There were eight claims in the patent as finally issued, but only six of them are in controversy here, 1-3-4-5-6-7:

“1. A three-part strut assembly adapted to rest on and extend transversely of the top flange of a substantially horizontal metallic I-beam or like structure and to support at the sides of the beams a pair of vertically extending form-supporting bolts having nuts, at the up[106]*106per ends of their shanks, said strut assembly comprising a single elongated horizontal tie rod of strong rigid metal and a pair of separately formed suspension devices at the ends of the tie rod, said suspension devices being formed of elongated strips of stamped strong rigid metal of appreciable width and bent medially of their end edges to provide U-shaped structures having substantially parallel side portions, and intermediate connecting bight portions, the ends of the tie rod projecting between and being welded to said side portion of the suspension devices in close proximity to the upper edges of the latter and defining, in combination with said suspension devices, closed loops presenting vertically elongated openings for receiving with but comparatively little lateral looseness the shanks of the bolts, said strut assembly being of such length that when it is in its operative position with respect to the I-beam the lower edges of the inner regions of the side portions of the suspension devices seat on the upper face of the upper flange of the I-beam and the outer regions of said side portions together with the bight portions overhang the longitudinal edges of said upper flange, the upper edges of the overhanging parts of the suspension devices being designed and adapted to underlie the underneath faces of the nuts, said overhanging parts of the suspension devices being adapted when the nuts are tightened and the forms which are supported by the bolts are loaded to be forced downwards to a slight extent to the end that the lower edge portions thereof extend below the level of the upper face of the upper flange of the I-beam and thereby prevent inward shifting of the suspension devices with respect to said upper flange, said suspension devices being of such materially greater maximum height than maximum width that when the strut assembly is in use, the tie rod is disposed a substantial distance above the upper flange of the I-beam with the result that the load on the bolts places the portion of the tie rod between the suspension devices under appreciable tension thereby preventing it from being subject to any appreciable upward bending and resultant outward and downward tilting of the suspension devices as a whole.
3. A strut assembly as set forth in Claim I and wherein the side portions of each suspension device are instruck in certain regions thereof to form spaced vertical ribs on the inside faces thereof, and such ribs are welded to the side portions of the adjacent end of the tie rod.
4. A strut assembly as set forth in Claim I and wherein the lower edge portions of the connecting bight portions are inclined upwardly and outwardly to provide anti-shear relief regions for bolt-shank clearance purposes.
5. A strut assembly as set forth in Claim I and wherein each of the side portions of each suspension device has formed along the lower edge thereof a row of downwardly projecting teeth adapted to bite into the metal of the upper flange of the I-beam when the concrete forms are loaded.
6. A strut assembly as set forth in claim 5 and wherein each row of teeth is fully coextensive with the lower edge of the side portion of the suspension device on which it is formed so that certain of the outermost teeth of the row overhang the adjacent side edge of the upper flange of the I-beam.
7. A strut assembly as set forth in claim 5 and wherein each row of teeth is generally of saw-tooth design and embodies vertical inwardly facing edges and inclined outwardly facing edges.”

[107]*107In simple language, the patented device is designed to sustain the scaffolding attached to the steel I-beam onto which concrete is poured in the formation oí the floor or surface of concrete bridges. The following reproduction of an exhibit demonstrates how the device functions when assembled in actual use.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 F. Supp. 104, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 572, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-concrete-accessories-inc-v-richmond-screw-anchor-co-mowd-1965.