Phillips Petroleum Co. v. US Steel Corp.

• Citation: 673 F. Supp. 1278
• Decision Date: 28 October 1987
• Docket Number: 83-547,84-79 and 85-255 LON.,83-148,83-801,Civ. A. No. 83-143
• Parties: PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Shell Oil Company, Northern Petrochemical Co., El Paso Products Company and Himont U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Hercules Incorporated and Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

673 F. Supp. 1278

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Shell Oil Company, Northern Petrochemical Co., El Paso Products Company and Himont U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Hercules Incorporated and Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 83-143, 83-148, 83-547, 83-801, 84-79 and 85-255 LON.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

October 28, 1987.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

C. Waggaman Berl, Jr., Wilmington, Del. (Harry J. Roper, Sidney Neuman, George S. Bosy, Nicholas A. Poulos, Robert W. Fieseler, Raymond N. Nimrod, Philip T. Petti, Erick D. Ponader, Steven Trybus, Esquire and Julia D. Hart, of Neuman, Williams, Anderson & Olson, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for Phillips Petroleum Co. Charles S. Crompton, Jr., of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del. (Francis T. Carr, Kenneth E. Madsen, Alan T. Bowes, James Galbraith, Philip G. Hampton, II, and Deborah S. Rittman, of Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, of counsel), for Shell Oil Co., Northern Petrochemical Co., United States Steel Corp., Hercules Inc. and Himont U.S.A., Inc.

Arthur G. Connolly, Jr., of Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, Del. (Stanton T. Lawrence, III, Thomas F. Reddy, Jr., and James A. Power, Jr., of Pennie & Edmonds, New York City, of counsel), for El Paso Products Co.

                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                         I. Chemistry of Polymers
                            A. Building Blocks
                            B. The Formation of Polymers
                       II. The '851 Patent
                      III. Invalidity
                           A. Anticipation
                              1. The Natta '300 Patent
                                 a. The Section 146 Proceeding
                                 b. The Evidence at Trial
                                    1) Written Description
                                    2) Enablement
                              2. The Zletz '257 Patent
                                 a. Express Disclosure
                                 b. Inherent Disclosure
                                    1) EP-34
                                       a) Percent Crystalline Polypropylene
                                       b) Percent Ethylene Content
                                    2) EP-35
                                       a) Percent Crystalline Polypropylene
                                       b) Percent Ethylene Content
                                          1)) The Gardner Method
                                          2)) The Brame Method
                                          3)) Other Experiments
                                              a)) Maury
                                              b)) Zletz
                                                  (i)  AZ-14
                                                  (ii) AZ-20
                                 c. Chemistry
                                    1) Disproportionation
                                    2) Ethylene Polymerization
                                    3) Alkylation
                            B. Double Patenting
                            C. Obviousness
                               1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
                               2. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention
                               3. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
                               4. Secondary Considerations
                                  a. Commercial Success
                                  b. Failure of Others
                                  c. Contemporaneous Independent Development
                                     1) The Peters' Runs
                                        a) P-1
                                        b) P-9
                               5. Conclusion
                            D. Section 101, 112
                               1. Utility and Enablement
                

                                  a. The Interference Proceedings
                                  b. Defendants' Arguments
                                     1) Disclosure Is Insufficient
                                     2) Underlying Factual Basis for the 146 Proceedings
                                        a) Young's Modulus
                                        b) Molecular Weight
                                        c) Thermal Stability
                               2. Best Mode
                            E. Inequitable Conduct
                               1. Factual Background: The Development of Crystalline
                                  Polypropylene
                                  a. The Early Work at Phillips
                                  b. The Discoveries of Ziegler and Natta
                                  c. Subsequent Development at Phillips
                               2. Materiality
                               3. Intent
                  IV. Infringement
                            A. Literal Infringement
                               1. Phillips' 1953 and 1954 Specifications
                               2. File Wrapper Estoppel
                                  a. Claims 29-37
                                  b. Claim 38
                            B. Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents
                               1. Molecular Weight
                               2. Toughness
                               3. Commercial Utility
                                  a. Solubility
                                  b. Melting Point
                                  c. Density
                                  d. Infrared Analysis
                                  e. X-Ray Analysis
                               4. Conclusion
                   V. Attorneys' Fees
                  VI. Conclusion
                

OPINION

LONGOBARDI, District Judge.

U.S. Patent 4,376,851 ("the '851 patent") was issued on March 15, 1983, to Phillips Petroleum Company ("Phillips") as assignee of John P. Hogan and Robert L. Banks ("Hogan and Banks"). The patent claims the invention of crystalline polypropylene. Phillips sued all other parties ("Defendants") to this litigation for infringement of the '851 patent. Subsequently, each of Defendants was licensed and the suits against Shell Oil Co. ("Shell"), Northern Petrochemical Co. ("Northern") and El Paso Products Co. ("El Paso") were dismissed. Each of them, however, sued Phillips in a declaratory judgment action claiming that the '851 patent was invalid, not infringed and unenforceable. The original suits against Hercules Incorporated ("Hercules") and U.S. Steel ("U.S.X.") were then consolidated with the declaratory judgment actions.

Defendants' contentions may be summarized as follows:

(a) The '851 patent is invalid because it was anticipated by prior art, in particular, U.S. Patent No. 3,112,300 ("the '300 patent" or "Natta patent"). In this respect, the '851 patent's parent applications in 1953 and 1954 were not valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and, therefore, they did not pre-date the Natta patent's effective date of June 8, 1955.

(b) The '851 patent is invalid for double patenting.

(c) The '851 patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct.

(d) Although Defendants concede literal infringement, they contend the reverse doctrine of equivalents negates liability.

(e) Phillips should be estopped from enforcement of the patent based on cancellation of claims during prosecution of its applications.

(f) The '851 patent is invalid because it is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or obvious as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because of U.S. Patent No. 2,692,257 ("the '257 patent" or "the Zletz patent") granted October 19, 1954, on an application filed on April 28, 1951.

(g) The '851 patent is invalid because the application fails to state a specific utility for the product in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

(h) The '851 patent is invalid because the patentees failed to set forth in their application a written description for making the invention and the best mode known to them for making the invention, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

The first application leading to the '851 patent was filed on January 27, 1953 ("the 1953 application") and was assigned Serial No. 333,576 by the U.S. Patent Office. Phillips filed another application, Serial No. 476,306 on December 20, 1954 ("the 1954 application") as a continuation-in-part application. On January 11, 1956, Phillips filed application Serial No. 558,530 ("the 1956 application") as a continuation-in-part of both the 1953 and the 1954 applications. Ultimately, the 1956 application, after twenty-seven years of protracted litigation, resulted in the issuance of the '851 patent.

On September 9, 1958, the Patent Office declared an interference. At least five groups of inventors and their corporate assignees were contending that they were the first to discover crystalline polypropylene. The Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences ("Board") issued an opinion on November 29, 1971, awarding priority of invention to Montedison, S.p.A. ("Montedison") which claimed the benefit of U.S. Application No. 514,099 filed by Guillo Natta, et al, on June 8, 1955. Phillips, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. ("DuPont") and the Standard Oil Company (Indiana) ("Standard") sought review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146. The actions were consolidated and tried before The Honorable Caleb M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware. The Court resolved the priority issue in favor of Phillips. Standard Oil Company v. Montedison, 494 F.Supp. 370 (D.Del.1980), aff'd, 664 F.2d 356 (3d Cir.1981). Phillips was then granted the '851 patent after proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO").

I. CHEMISTRY OF POLYMERS

A. Building Blocks

Each chemical element has a unique atomic structure composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, the building blocks common to all chemical elements. An atom of hydrogen, the simplest element, is composed of one proton and one electron. It has an atomic weight of 1. (Bailey, Tr. at 106, 127-27).¹ Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. (Bailey, Tr. at 127). Hydrocarbons are molecules formed from hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms. (Bailey, Tr. at 104; Glossary, D.I. 206, at 24).²

The hydrocarbon ethylene is formed from two carbon atoms, each bonded by two hydrogen atoms. (Bailey, Tr. at 129-30; Glossary, D.I. 206, at 13-14):

H H | | H-C = C-H or CH2=CH2 or C2H4.

The hydrocarbon propylene is formed from three carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms. (Bailey, Tr. at 131-32; Glossary at 34):

H | H-C=C-H or CH2= CH-CH3 or C3H6. | H-C-H | H

Both the ethylene and propylene molecules have double bonds (=) between two adjacent terminal carbon atoms. Such compounds are called 1-olefins or alpha-olefins. Because the double bond is more reactive than a single bond, chemical reactions are more likely when molecules with double bonds are present. (Bailey, Tr. at 119-21, 129; Glossary, D.I. 206, at 10-11, 31).

B. The Formation of Polymers

Polymers are large chain-like molecules formed by bonding together several much smaller molecules called monomers, e.g., ethylene or...