![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Claims
July 11, 1975, Decided
Nos. 189-63, 520-71
[*519] [**1385] Per Curiam:
These consolidated cases come before the court on defendant's exceptions [***8] to the opinion and recommended decision, filed May 16, 1967 [pursuant to then Rule 57(a)], by then Commissioner Donald E. Lane (now Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) and to the supplemental opinion and recommended decision, filed September 20, 1974 [pursuant to Rule 134(h)], by Trial Judge Joseph V. Colaianni. The court has considered the cases on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the opinions, findings of fact and recommended decisions filed May 16, 1967, and September 20, 1974, [*520] as hereinafter set [**1386] forth, it hereby affirms and adopts them as the basis for its judgment in these cases. Therefore, the court concludes as a matter of law that claims 7 and 8 of United States Letters Patent No. 2,945,666 are valid and have been infringed by the defendant's unauthorized use of ball valves produced by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corp. and by Worcester Valve Co., Inc., and that plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and entire compensation therefor. Accordingly, judgment is entered for plaintiff with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Rule 131(c) (2).
OPINIONS [***9] OF TRIAL JUDGES
Lane, Commissioner: This is a patent suit under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1498 to recover reasonable and entire compensation for the unauthorized use or manufacture by or for the defendant of a patented invention. Plaintiff specifically alleges that ball valves manufactured by Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corp. and by Worcester Valve Co., Inc., and procured and used by the defendant embody an invention defined in varying scope in patent claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 2,945,666, entitled "Ball Valve." Said patent, referred to hereinafter as the patent in suit, issued to plaintiff on July 19, 1960, on an application for patent filed February 14, 1958, which was a continuation in part of a parent application filed June 11, 1954. After the trial on liability was completed with briefs and requested findings being submitted, plaintiff's ownership of the patent in suit was put in issue by E. W. Bliss Co. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In view of the suit in Massachusetts, the parties have stipulated to stay action on the present suit, after commissioner's report has been filed, until the ownership issue has been [***10] settled in the Massachusetts District Court. Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the present suit if the District Court finds against plaintiff on the issue of ownership. The parties have also agreed to defer trial of any accounting issues until the issues of patent infringement and patent validity are decided.
It is concluded that claims 7 and 8 of the patent in suit are valid and that ball valves manufactured by both the Electric [*521] Boat Division, General Dynamics Corp., and by Worcester Valve Co. which were procured and used by the defendant infringe said patent claims.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
207 Ct. Cl. 516 *; 518 F.2d 1384 **; 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102 ***; 187 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 720
JAMESBURY CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
ball, patent, sealing, valve, ring, lip, seat, ball valve, openings, casing, invention, inventors, fluid, rotation, surface, radial, valve seat, compression, axial, tapered, drawings, illustrated, discloses, engagement, infringed, flexible, port, mounted, inlet, outlet
Patent Law, Doctrine of Equivalents, Elements, Equivalence, Infringement Actions, General Overview, Infringing Acts, Defenses, Inequitable Conduct, Originality, Joinder of Inventors, Joint & Sole Inventorship, Specifications, Definiteness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Civil Procedure, Parties, Joinder of Parties, Misjoinder, Evidence, Presumptions, Exceptions, Statutory Presumptions, Burdens of Proof, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, Enablement Requirement, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Ordinary Skill Standard, Prior Art, Graham Test, Secondary Considerations