Eastman Oil Well Survey Co. v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co.
Decision Date | 16 January 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 10197.,10197. |
Parties | EASTMAN OIL WELL SURVEY CO. v. SPERRY-SUN WELL SURVEYING CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jack A. Schley, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Ira J. Allen, of Houston, Tex., and George A. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
The suit was for infringement of a method claim of one1 and four method and two apparatus claims of another2 patent for orienting and setting whipstocks designed to guide a drilling tool in a definite predetermined direction, e. g., in straightening a crooked bore-hole or deliberately deflecting it in a given direction.
"A whipstock", as appellant's brief described it,
The claim was that defendant was infringing these claims by employing a method and device substantially the equivalent of those claimed in plaintiff's patents. The defenses were lack of invention, anticipation, noninfringement, and, as to the Hyer Patent, that he was not the true inventor. The district judge, of the opinion that the patents were valid and infringed, gave judgment accordingly.
Appellant here urging upon us the same contentions it made below, insists that Hyer's admission that he had nothing to do with putting, and did not put, in the patent drawings the figure 4, disclosing the indirect method of obtaining the indications sought, shows that he was not the sole and only inventor and avoids the patent. But its main argument is directed to the issues of anticipation, and therefore lack of invention, and non-infringement. Insisting that the claims of both Palmer and Hyer are anticipated by, and invalid under Straatman3 and Koerner4; it argues further that if not so invalid, it must be because they are to be so narrowly construed that defendant's device is not an infringement of them. Appellee concedes, as it must, that neither Palmer nor Hyer were pioneers in the art of orienting and setting whipstocks, a tool well known in the oil well drilling trade. But it insists that its inventions are advancements in the art of such merit that they are entitled to be protected as well against equivalent as against identical devices. It thus at once appears that what is presented here is the familiar picture of claims to an invention not of a pioneer nature, but, if invention at all, representing only a limited advance over earlier disclosures in the same field. Here the claimed infringer seeks to impale plaintiff on the horn of claiming too broadly, and, therefore, because of the prior art, having no patent at all, or on that of having its invention so narrowly defined that, its patent sustained as valid, its suit fails because it is unable to obtain a finding and decree of infringement. An infringement of such patents is not easily made out, since, while in principle the doctrine of equivalence is applicable to them, it is only so when most narrowly circumscribed, Hughes v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 817; Shephard v. Carrigan, 116 U.S. 593, 597, 6 S.Ct. 493, 29 L.Ed. 723. In short, plaintiff in this case, as in so many others like it, finds the going hard, the sledding rough in its efforts to meet defendant's claim on the one hand that its method and device are mechanically, and, therefore, substantially different from and do not infringe plaintiff's method and device, and on the other hand that defendant has but followed the disclosures of earlier patents, and if in doing so it has infringed the claim of plaintiff, then plaintiff's patents are invalid because what infringes, if later, necessarily anticipates if prior, Butex Gas Co. v. Southern Steel Co., 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 954; Johnston Formation Testing Co. v. Halliburton, 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 270; Otis Pressure Control, Inc., v. Guiberson Corp., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 930; Price-Trawick, Inc., v. Gas Lift Corp., 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 134.
Examining claim 33 of the Palmer patent in the light the governing principles shed on the undisputed facts, it is quite clear that that claim is so broadly stated and so wholly without effective limitations, the words "bearing a known relationship to the whipstock" being wholly without effect as such, as that if allowed, it would give a general monopoly on methods...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LODGE & SHIPLEY COMPANY v. Holstein and Kappert
...of such claim. Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Lone Star Gas Co., 195 F.2d 645, 648 (5 Cir. 1952); Eastman Oil Well Survey Co. v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co., 131 F.2d 884, 886 (5 Cir. 1942). 10. Plaintiff's assertion of commercial success of the device of the Meierjohan patent in an attempt to s......
-
Southern States Equip. Corp. v. USCO Power Equip. Corp.
...found such weight as would appear appropriate in determining whether infringement actually exists. See Eastman Oil Well Survey Co. v. Sperry-Sun Well Sur. Co., 5 Cir., 131 F. 2d 884, 887. In an attempt to upset the trial court's findings of infringement as to their GT and GTH switches, the ......
-
Thurber Corporation v. Fairchild Motor Corporation
...and that it is not necessary that he even have knowledge of the patent alleged to be infringed. Eastman Oil Well Survey Co. v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co., 5 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 884, 887; Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Silica Products Co., 8 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 503, 508; 3 Walker, Patents §......
-
Marvin Glass & Associates v. DE LUXE TOPPER CORPORATION
..."Silly Safari." C. H. Dexter & Sons, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 292 F.2d 371 (1st Cir. 1961); Eastman Oil Well Survey Co. v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co., 131 F.2d 884 (5th Cir. 1942); see Helms Products, Inc. v. Lake Shore Manufacturing Co., 227 F.2d 677, 683 (7th Cir. Accordingly, def......