Neville Chemical Co. v. Resinall Corp., s. 90-1015

• Citation: 915 F.2d 1584
• Decision Date: 20 September 1990
• Docket Number: Nos. 90-1015,90-1034,s. 90-1015
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESINALL CORPORATION, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 1584

915 F.2d 1584

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

NEVILLE CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESINALL CORPORATION, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 90-1015, 90-1034.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1990.

Before ARCHER, Circuit Judge, JACK R. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

Neville Chemical Co. appeals a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. B-85-177 (D.Conn. July 21, 1989) (amended Sept. 5, 1989), dismissing its complaint based upon findings of no infringement. Resinall Corporation appeals the district court's dismissal of its counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the Neville patents in suit are invalid. We affirm the holding of no infringement, vacate the determination that the patents in suit are not invalid, and deny Resinall's request for fees and costs on appeal.

OPINION

The district court found pentaerythritol to be an integral component of Resinall's products which altered their molecular structure from that of the patented resins and gave them new and unique properties. Neville asserts that Resinall merely produces a pentaerythritol ester blended with, but not reacted with and integrated into, a modified hydrocarbon resin claimed in its patents, and that the trial judge misconstrued evidence as to the structure and properties of Resinall products in finding to the contrary.

Specifically, Neville argues that the trial judge erred in discounting the inferences Dr. Craver drew from her infrared spectroscopic evidence of structural similarity between Neville's and Resinall's products. Neville further argues that the opinion testimony of Resinall witnesses relied upon by the trial judge was not credible because it was not supported by testing or documentary evidence. Neville's arguments that the district court erred in finding structural differences between Resinall's products and the resins claimed in Neville's patents essentially amount to a contention that the trial judge gave insufficient weight to Neville's own evidence and too much weight to Resinall's evidence. The trial judge's determination with respect to the structure of the Resinall products was a finding of fact,...