Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States

Court of Claims

Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States

193 Ct. Cl. 1088, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 90, 1970 WL 3635

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 30, 1970

DocketNo. 336-69

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 Ct. Cl. 1088 (Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 1088, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 90, 1970 WL 3635 (cc 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Patents; infringement. — Plaintiff seeks to recover reasonable and entire compensation for alleged infringement by defendant of its United States patent No. 3,236,018 relating to a panel which can be combined with similar panels to form a load-supporting elevated floor. The United States and Severn Products Inc., which was joined as third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment asserting that the floor panels made by Severn for defendant do not infringe the claims of the patent. Plaintiff has conceded that at most only claims 5 and 6 of its patent are infringed. On July 6, 1970, Trial Commissioner Joseph Y. Colaianni filed a report, and after discussing the patented device as well as the panel built by Severn, 'concluded that the issues are inappropriate for decision on summary judgment; that the question of infringement or non-infringement should be decided only after a full factual establishment of equivalents and claim scope; that it is unwise to consider the question of non-[1089]*1089infringement apart from the question of patent validity; and that both of these questions can be considered after trial, at which the testimony of experts can be adduced, evaluated and used to assist the commissioner and the court. After the filing of the report, the case came before the court on plaintiff’s motion that the court adopt the trial commissioner’s report and opinion in the absence of a timely request for review by 'any party to this action. The court, upon consideration of the report and since it agrees with the same, the opinion and recommended conclusion, on October 30, 1970 adopted by order the report, attached to and made a part of the order, as the basis for its decision on the joint motion for summary judgment of defendants, denied the motion and remanded the case to the trial commissioner for further appropriate proceedings.

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

Patents; infringement. — Plaintiff seeks to recover reasonable and entire compensation for alleged infringement by defendant of its United States patent No. 3,236,018 relating to a panel which can be combined with similar panels to form a load-supporting elevated floor. The United States and Severn Products Inc., which was joined as third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment asserting that the floor panels made by Severn for defendant do not infringe the claims of the patent. Plaintiff has conceded that at most only claims 5 and 6 of its patent are infringed. On July 6, 1970, Trial Commissioner Joseph Y. Colaianni filed a report, and after discussing the patented device as well as the panel built by Severn, 'concluded that the issues are inappropriate for decision on summary judgment; that the question of infringement or non-infringement should be decided only after a full factual establishment of equivalents and claim scope; that it is unwise to consider the question of non-[1089]*1089infringement apart from the question of patent validity; and that both of these questions can be considered after trial, at which the testimony of experts can be adduced, evaluated and used to assist the commissioner and the court. After the filing of the report, the case came before the court on plaintiff’s motion that the court adopt the trial commissioner’s report and opinion in the absence of a timely request for review by 'any party to this action. The court, upon consideration of the report and since it agrees with the same, the opinion and recommended conclusion, on October 30, 1970 adopted by order the report, attached to and made a part of the order, as the basis for its decision on the joint motion for summary judgment of defendants, denied the motion and remanded the case to the trial commissioner for further appropriate proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Ct. Cl. 1088, 1970 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 90, 1970 WL 3635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-engineering-inc-v-united-states-cc-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack