Wilson Research Corp. v. Piolite Plastics Corp.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 62-586.
• Citation: 218 F. Supp. 145
• Parties: WILSON RESEARCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PIOLITE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

218 F. Supp. 145

WILSON RESEARCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PIOLITE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 62-586.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

February 28, 1963.

C. Yardley Chittick, Russell, Chittick & Pfund, Robert B. Russell, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

George W. Crowley, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

This patent action originally involved two patents issued to the plaintiff on August 15, 1961. Before trial, the plaintiff disclaimed one of the patents—U.S. 2,996,417—which had been issued on an application filed June 1, 1960, so that there remain in suit only the claims of the other patent—U.S. 2,996,609—issued on an application filed July 7, 1958. While this case is concerned only with the questions of validity and infringement of this latter patent, reference will have to be made to the disclaimed patent in order to develop the chronology of the relationship between the parties and to get a full understanding of the claims set forth in the patent in suit.

The defendant attacks the validity of the patent on the grounds that the disclosure is insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 112 of Title 35, U.S.C. and because there is no proof of invention on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant also alleges that the action should be dismissed because the plaintiff comes before the Court with unclean hands.

Findings of Fact

Both parties are engaged in the manufacture of "luminous ceiling panels," light diffusing plastic panels suitable for mounting below ceiling lighting fixtures. The active personality of the plaintiff, Bertram A. Wilson, and the principal of the defendant, Jack P. LaCava, have been acquainted for nearly ten years and were doing business even before the formation of the plaintiff and defendant corporations.

Prior to the development of the patent in suit, various types of luminous ceilings, plastic and metal, were on the market; but all had serious drawbacks. Some were fire hazards; some collected dirt; some were not sufficiently rigid and sagged after a period of time. Both Wilson and LaCava were, therefore, looking for new and improved products and in the early part of 1958 Wilson conceived the basic idea of the patent in suit. He thought of vacuum forming vinyl sheets into identical shallow pans with evenly shaped and spaced indentations or "dimples" and flanges around the periphery and fusing two such formed sheets at the bottoms of the indentations and at the flanges. LaCava, in June or July 1958, made the original sample sheets for Wilson in accordance with a sketch of Wilson's. Wilson cemented two together and found that the panels had potential in that they were rigid and did not tend to sag, that they could be easily cleaned and that after punching holes through the abutting and sealed bases of the indentations, the panels could be used under sprinkler systems. On July 7, 1958 he applied for the patent in suit.

Wilson realized, however, that he could not commercially produce these panels by cementing two sheets; and he unsuccessfully experimented with a variety of sealing techniques, including electronic heat sealing. This method, while good in theory, presented a number of practical problems. Because the bottoms of the dimples were very thin and because the original vinyl sheets were not completely even, Wilson encountered a considerable amount of arcing; i. e., burning of the plastic...