Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. WM Acker Organization

Decision Date10 December 1942
Docket NumberNo. 8997.,8997.
Citation131 F.2d 277
PartiesMERCO NORDSTROM VALVE CO. v. W. M. ACKER ORGANIZATION, Inc., et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio (F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio, William A. Strauch, of Washington, D. C., Lewis D. Konigsford, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Strauch & Hoffman, of Washington, D. C., and Richey & Watts, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.

Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., (Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., Donald U. Rich, of New York City, Alexander L. Nichols, of Wilmington, Del., and Kwis, Hudson & Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

Suit by appellant for infringement of Claims 6, 7 and 8 of Reissue Patent No. 17,375, herein called No. 75, July 16, 1929, to Nordstrom for a "Valve"; and of Claims 13 and 14 of Patent No. 2,012,578, herein called No. 78, August 27, 1935, also to Nordstrom for a "Valve." The defenses were invalidity and noninfringement.

In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court limited the claims substantially to the disclosures of the patent, and held that so limited, they were valid but uninfringed. It thereupon dismissed the bill by a short, general decree. Plaintiff appealed. There was no cross appeal.

Appellant asserts that the only issue here is that of infringement since appellees have not filed a cross appeal. We do not so understand the law. The appeal brought up the whole case and appellees are entitled to an affirmance if it was right for any reason. Appellees are entitled to be heard upon the question of validity of the patents, regardless of the finding, and if the patents are invalid, the decree was right although based upon non-infringement. Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp., 295 U.S. 237, 239, 55 S.Ct. 746, 79 L.Ed. 1414; Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 538, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520; Mills Nov. Co. v. Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 49 F.2d 28, 29; Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. Humphreys et al., 6 Cir., 97 F.2d 849, 855, 121 A.L.R. 163.

Each patent relates to an improvement in the pressure lubricating system of "plug valves." No. 78 emphasizes its application to "tapered plugs."

In the specification of No. 75 it was stated that one object of the invention was "to provide a plug valve * * * with a system of lubricating grooves of such arrangement that when the plug is in closed position the grooves on each side of the passageway through the valve seat cooperate to constitute a continuous groove completely surrounding the passageway which may be filled with lubricant under pressure to prevent leakage past the plug." By the described arrangement it was stated that it was "possible to turn the plug through an angle of 360 degrees without exposing a groove or grooves in which there is lubricant under pressure to the fluid passing through the line." The specification indicates that the principle of pressure lubrication for the purpose of lubricating and rendering heavy valves nonleakable was already old, and that No. 75 proposed to apply that "principle" to plug valves of the "cheapest and lightest construction."

The drawings are illustrative of a tapered plug and the specification states that this is the preferred form. Five of the eight claims expressly called for a tapered valve seat, although the three claims in suit do not so specify. The valve described consisted of a tapered plug, frusto-conical in shape, seated with the small end down in a valve seat of the same shape. A threaded projection at the lower end of the plug received a rigid washer and nut, which when screwed tight held the plug securely against the seat. A flattened stem at the upper end of the plug accommodated a wrench for rotation into open and closed positions. The plug had a single passageway therethrough, the ports of which, when in registry with the passageways in the seat, allowed the flow of fluids and gases through the valve; and out of registry, blocked such flow.

In the prior art play between plug and seat permitted rotation of the plug and prevented binding; but fluids and gases in the line, often under tremendous pressures, tended to infiltrate through this space, either around, beneath, or over the plug, causing valve leakage. The purported invention of No. 75 was designed to close this space between plug and seat with a grease or lubricant under sufficient pressure to hold back the fluids or gases of the line, thus rendering the valve non-leakable. This was accomplished by the providing in the faces of the plug and of the seat a system of grooves which were in communication with a grease reservoir in the cone of the valve stem to which pressure could be applied by means of a screw in the stem. Two radial ducts, extending at right angles to the long axis of the plug and at 180 degrees to each other, connected the grease reservoir with the center of horizontal arcuate grooves in the plug face which grooves were disposed midway between each port and above its upper edge. Also in the face of the plug and disposed below the lower edges of the ports were two other arcuate horizontal grooves parallel to those just described. In the open and closed positions of the valve, the ends of each pair of parallel grooves were connected by vertical grooves, four in all, cut into the seat of the plug 90 degrees apart. Thus the lubricant spread from the reservoir through the two radial ducts to the centers of the upper arcuate grooves, thence to the ends thereof, and when in registry with the vertical grooves down those grooves to the ends of the lower arcuate grooves and into those grooves. In the open position of the plug only the vertical sides of each port were paralleled with lubricant filled grooves under pressure. But by rotating the valve into the closed position, each pair of horizontal grooves moved through 90 degrees into positions above and below the openings in the valve seat, the ends moving into registry with the ends of a pair of vertical groves forming a four-sided lubricant-filled groove system completely surrounding each line opening and in theory preventing the leakage of fluids and gas from the line around the plug to the other side. The primary blocking of the line fluid probably occurred at the lubricant-filled grooves, and the emphasis of the patent appears to be placed upon these continuous grooves. But it was expected that the grooves would be supported from the lubricant which had been smeared by rotation or squeezed by pressure into the areas of the plug adjoining the groove, since the specification expressly referred to a "seal of lubricant," indicating the lubrication process itself had sealing features. Between the full open and closed positions of the valve single vertical grooves on opposite sides of the valve seat would be exposed to line pressure. However, in this position the exposed vertical grooves would be out of communication with the reservoir and the only lubricant which would be swept into the line would be the relatively small amount then in each vertical groove. When the valve rotated again into full open or closed position, these empty vertical grooves would again move into registry with the ends of the horizontal grooves and would again be pressed full of lubricant. In the intermediate position of the valve only one vertical groove on each side of the valve would be in communication with the lubricant chamber, and would lubricate that portion of the valve adjacent to it, while the other two vertical grooves were, as we have said, being emptied by line pressure.

In valves seldom used or set in lines through which corrosive liquids flowed, it sometimes happened that the plug would become so jammed into its seat that it could not be rotated by the usual means. This was particularly true of tapered valves. To meet this difficulty the practice devoloped of providing under the plug a chamber into which lubricant could be forced under heavy pressure, thereby hydraulically lifting or "jacking" the plug from its seat, loosening it. The process of jacking was old and one embodiment for achieving it is illustrated in Reissue No. 14,516 to Nordstrom dated August 27, 1918. It should be noted also that the later provision of the flexible washer in No. 75 permitted a modified form of jacking through the lifting effect of the lubricant under pressure in the grooves. And in the specification of No. 78 it was stated that that patent had particular application to valves "having tapered plugs... which employ compressed lubricant to hydraulically jack the plug from its seat."

Patent No. 78 was designed to combine an improved sealed port or cut off feature such as was described in No. 75 with the jacking feature and an improved means for preventing "leakage of line fluid between the stem and casing," this last by the provision of a sealing channel around the stem set in a shoulder of the plug and operating against an overhanging portion of the casing which was provided with a diaphragm and packing ring affording some resiliency against compression. All this was to be accomplished in one system of lubrication, and since jacking required quite high pressures, an equivalent pressure in the sealing channel around the stem would tend to neutralize the jacking pressure. It was hence an object of the invention to create a lag in the lubricant pressure exerted in the various sealing channels by reducing channels and openings between them and the jacking chamber where the highest pressure should be generated.

More specifically, No. 78 described a tapered plug with a lubricant reservoir in the core of the valve stem. This reservoir was connected by means of a large radial and vertical duct with the jacking or lubricant chamber at the base of the plug. The groove system in the seating surfaces of the valve, however, differed somewhat from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • KOOL VENT METAL A. CORP. v. AMERICAN BEAUTY VAA CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • March 18, 1954
    ...Co. v. Hughes, 1949, 176 F.2d 783; Sixth Circuit: Electric Vacuum Cleaner v. P. A. Geier, 1941, 118 F.2d 221; Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Corp., 1942, 131 F.2d 277; Seventh Circuit: Simmons Co. v. Superior, 1939, 107 F. 2d 536; Murdock v. Vaughan, 1942, 131 F.2d 258; Smith v. D......
  • Mueller v. Campbell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 23, 1945
    ...It is now axiomatic that a patent regularly issued is presumed to be valid. As stated by the Court in Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 277, 280, "Of course the patent itself was prima facie evidence of its validity," and that presumption is strengthene......
  • Maytag Company v. Murray Corporation of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 5, 1963
    ...833, 835, C.A. 6; Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp., 295 U.S. 237, 239, 55 S.Ct. 746, 79 L.Ed. 1414; Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, Inc., 131 F.2d 277, C.A. 6; Guiberson Corp. v. Equipment Engineers, Inc., 252 F.2d 431, 432, C.A. 5; Graham v. Cockshutt Farm Equi......
  • Cooper v. Westchester County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 1, 1949
    ...It is now axiomatic that a patent regularly issued is presumed to be valid. As stated by the Court in Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 277, 280. "Of course the patent itself was prima facie evidence of its validity." The burden of proving want of novel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT