201 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2000), 99-1190-1256, Vanmoor v Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Docket Nº:99-1190-1256
Citation:201 F.3d 1363
Party Name:Vanmoor v Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Case Date:January 10, 2000
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1363

201 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

ARTHUR VANMOOR (formerly known as Arthur Vanmoerkerken), Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant,

and

BUILDER'S SQUARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

and

HOME DEPOT USA, INC. (doing business as Home Depot) and RED DEVIL, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

and

SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

and

FEDERAL PACKAGING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee,

and

THE GLIDDEN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

99-1190,-1256

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

January 10, 2000

Rehearing Denied: March 7, 2000

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge William P. Dimitrouleas

Page 1364

Jack E. Dominik, Dominik, Knechtel, Demeur & Samlan, of Miami Lakes, Florida, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Blas P. Arroyo, Alston & Bird, of Charlotte, North Carolina, argued for defendants-appellees. On the brief were Philip J. Moy, Jr. and Steven M. Auvil, Fay, Sharpe, Beall, Fagan, Minnich & McKee, LLP, of Cleveland, Ohio; Andrew C. Aitken, Clifton E. McCann, and Ralph P. Albrecht, Lane, Aitken & McCann, of Washington, DC; Everett J. Bowman, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., of Charlotte, North Carolina; and Jay B. Shapiro, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., of Miami, Florida. Of counsel was Shelley H. Leincke, Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.

MAYER, Chief Judge.

Arthur Vanmoor appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, holding on summary judgment that United States Patent No. 5,582,331 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that Vanmoor's trade secrets had not been misappropriated. Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Civ. Action No. 97-CIV-6907 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 15, 1998) (final judgment order).1 Because we agree with the district court that Vanmoor has not raised a genuine issue as to any material fact and that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its co-appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

Background

Vanmoor is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,582,331, entitled "Caulking Gun and Cartridge with Afterflow Prevention" ("'331 patent"). The '331 patent is directed to a construction for a cartridge used to dispense caulking compound. The claims of the '331 patent recite a cartridge comprising a tubular body having a forward end with a dispensing opening and a movable backwall (commonly known as a plunger) disposed within the tubular body. The backwall is defined as having a diameter chosen such that it moves backwardly away from the forward end of the tubular body when the pressure within the chamber bounded by the tubular body, forward end, and backwall is greater than the pressure outside the chamber. The '331 patent

Page 1365

issued on December 10, 1996, from an application filed on September 13, 1995.

Vanmoor initially filed a complaint in the district...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP