Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States

477 F.2d 1336, 201 Ct. Cl. 711, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 365, 1973 WL 303470, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 46
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 11, 1973
DocketNo. 336-69
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 477 F.2d 1336 (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, 477 F.2d 1336, 201 Ct. Cl. 711, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 365, 1973 WL 303470, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 46 (cc 1973).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case comes before the court on plaintiff’s exceptions to a -recommended decision filed August 1, 1972, by Trial Commissioner Joseph V. Colaianni pursuant to Rule 134(h). The court has considered the case on the briefs and oral -argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the decision, as -hereinafter set forth, it hereby affirms and adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition-is dismissed.

OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

Colaianni, Commissioner: This is a patent suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Plaintiff, Tate Engineering, Inc., seeks “rea[714]*714sonable and entire compensation” for unauthorized use by the Government of plaintiff’s patented invention. Only the issue of liability is before the court; accounting, if any, is deferred to later proceedings. The patent in suit is U.S. Patent 3,236,018 (hereinafter the “Graham” patent), issued on February 22, 1966, to Donald C. Graham, Dale E. Hein and George H. Strain on an invention entitled “Load-Supporting Metallic Floor Panels.” All rights to the panel were assigned by the inventors to plaintiff on July 14, 1963, and plaintiff has continuously 'been the sole and exclusive owner of the patent.

Plaintiff moved to join Severn Products, Inc. (hereinafter “Severn”), on the ground that Severn allegedly supplied to the Government, under contract, products embodying the invention described and claimed in the Graham patent and actively induced infringement by the Government of the Graham patent. Severn entered the case as a third-party defendant and was represented by counsel during the entire pendency of the case before this court. Shortly after issue was joined, Severn and the Government filed a joint motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the accused product sold by Severn to the Government did not infringe any of the claims of the Graham patent. The trial commissioner recommended that the motion be denied. Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 166 USPQ 329 (1970). The court affirmed, Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 1088 (1970), and remanded the case “to the trial commissioner for further appropriate proceedings.”

This case raises the usual issues of infringement and validity. The Graham patent has eight claims, but plaintiff concedes that claims 1 through 4, 7 and 8 are not infringed by defendants. The issues to be decided include: (1) whether claims 5 and 6 of the Graham patent are infringed by the Severn product; (2) whether these two claims are invalid because they do not meet the standards set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103; (3) whether these clamis are unenforceable and/or invalid by reason of plaintiff’s failure to disclose to the Patent Office during prosecution of the Graham patent allegedly pertinent prior art of which it had knowledge; and (4) whether the claims are invalid because the patent fails [715]*715to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.

During the trial, defendants introduced prior art which had not been considered by the Patent Office, and which was not relied upon in their motion for summary judgment. Defendants rely primarily upon this additional prior art to support their joint position relative to the above issues. For reasons expressed below, claims 5 and 6 are held to be not infringed.

Background

Prior to the invention of the Graham panel, plaintiff was not engaged in the manufacture and/or sale of elevated flooring, although several other firms were then in the field. Based on a market study, plaintiff decided to enter the field and contracted with Graham Engineering, Inc., a consulting engineering firm, to develop a unique floor panel. The Graham panel was invented under this contract by Graham Engineering employees, and all patent rights in the panel were assigned to plaintiff on July 15,1963, one day before the Graham application was filed in the Patent Office. Plaintiff began manufacturing and selling the Graham panel in late 1962 or early 1963.

Patent in Suit

The invention disclosed by the Graham patent relates to a metal panel that can be combined with similar panels to form a load-supporting elevated floor. (See findings 8 and 9.) Individual panels, generally square in plan view, are usually supported above a subflooring by pedestals at each corner. The principal objective of such a panel is to support heavy loads without itself being of prohibitive thickness and weight. By way of example, elevated metal flooring is frequently used in connection with computer installations. Heavy computer equipment is easily supported on the elevated flooring, and the many interconnecting power and signal-carrying cables are conveniently routed through the space provided between the elevated flooring and subflooring.

The panel disclosed by the Graham patent is formed from two superimposed flat metal sheets. The upper sheet is im-perforate throughout its entire area and supports the load [716]*716upon its top surface. (See finding 9.) In the preferred embodiment, however, a finishing material, such as linoleum or floor tiling, is affixed to the top surface. The lower sheet is positioned directly beneath the upper sheet and after a number of incisions and bends, a pattern of square openings arranged in parallel rows and columns is formed in the lower sheet. The rows and columns of square openings are separated by a gridwork of parallel rows and columns of straight metal tension strips that remain in the plane of the lower sheet. These tension strips extend between opposite edges of the lower sheet.

Furthermore, as a result of the incisions and bends, struts are provided at the edges of the openings. The struts project toward the upper sheet, and their terminal ends are bent for attachment to the undersurface of the upper sheet. By design, it is intended that loads applied to the upper sheet will be transmitted through the struts, to the tension strips of the lower sheet. The load-supporting capability of a panel is proportional to the cube of the distance between the upper and lower sheets. Thus, by increasing the length of the struts, the load-supporting capability of a panel will be increased. In addition, the strength of a panel is dependent upon the number of struts and amount of contact area between the struts and the undersurface of the upper sheet.

While the preferred embodiment of the Graham panel has struts formed integral with only two edges of each opening, alternate embodiments of the invention have struts formed integral with all four edges of the openings. However, in all cases no waste occurs and all of the material which is cut and bent in the formation of the openings is utilized.

The edge of the Graham panel is constructed such that an upper bracing flange is formed by bending the edges of the upper sheet toward the lower sheet, and, at the same time, a lower bracing flange is formed by bending the edges of the lower sheet toward the upper sheet. The patent drawings Show (see Fig.

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

Related

Fike Corp. v. United States
41 Fed. Cl. 776 (Federal Claims, 1998)
Pacific Technica Corp. v. United States
33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,930 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Beloit Corp. v. JM Voith, GmbH
626 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Virginia, 1986)
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.
730 F.2d 1440 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Lemelson v. United States
3 Cl. Ct. 161 (Court of Claims, 1983)
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Dart Industries, Inc.
549 F. Supp. 716 (D. Delaware, 1982)
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America
457 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Indiana, 1978)
Coleco Industries, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
573 F.2d 1247 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
Coleco Industries, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
573 F.2d 1247 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
General Electric Co. v. United States
572 F.2d 745 (Court of Claims, 1978)
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States
553 F.2d 69 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Interdent Corp. v. United States
531 F.2d 547 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Roberts Dairy Co. v. United States
530 F.2d 1342 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Leesona Corp. v. United States
530 F.2d 896 (Court of Claims, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
477 F.2d 1336, 201 Ct. Cl. 711, 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 365, 1973 WL 303470, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-engineering-inc-v-united-states-cc-1973.