Date post: | 23-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | philip-ford |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
04/19/23Allan Woodworth | UC Berkeley | Mechanical Engineering | IEOR 190G | Fall 2008 |
Linde Air Products Co. v. Graver Tank &
Manufacturing (1950)
Outline
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Players
Welding
Claims of Infringement
Rulings and Appeals
Overall Impact
Players
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Linde Air Products Numerous products
such as the USA’s first oxygen liquidation plant and hydrostatic forklift.
Grover Tank Co. Makes tanks (the kind
that hold things such as air or oil)
Lincoln Electric Co. Makes flux
Welding
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
What is welding? A process that joins materials
(usually metals) through coalescence.
Generally done by melting the workpieces and adding a filler material that cools to become a strong joint.
Metal Arc Welding
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Flux
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Flux protects the weld from oxygen and other gases.
As the electrode melts the flux disintegrates giving off protective vapors and creating a protective molten slag.
Patent
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Linde owned a patent for an electronic welding process (2034960)
29 Claims
Dispute
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
Linde sued Graver Co. and others for infringing the patent on their welding composition and process.
Graver Co. said we’re not infringing because our flux uses manganese instead of magnesium.
Magnesium
Manganese
Dispute Continued
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
The patent claims the use of an alkaline earth metal silicate which includes Magnesium Silicate but not Magnesium silicate.
District Court Ruling
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
District Court found “that the Lincoln Electric Co. made, and the other petitioners used and sold, a flux substantially identical with that set forth in the valid composition claims of the patent in suit, and which could be made by a person skilled in the art merely by following its teachings. The petitioners introduced no evidence to show that their accused flux was derived either from the prior art, by independent experiment, or from any source other than the teachings of the patent in suit. The court found infringement of each of the four claims, and concluded that the respondent was entitled to a permanent injunction against future infringement and to an accounting for profits and damages…”
Appeals Court
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
The case was sent to an appeals court which agreed with the decision made by the district court.
The case was then sent to the 7th district court which actually strengthened the infringement case claiming even more of the claims were infringed than originally ruled by the court.
Finally, the case was sent to the Supreme Court and upheld claiming that though the “infringement was not literal” there was still infringement based on the “Doctrine of Equivalents.”
Doctrine of Equivalents
04/19/23Allan Woodworth
It performs substantially the same function
in substantially the same way
to yield substantially the same result.
then it is EQUIVALENT
Questions?
04/19/23Allan Woodworth