EB: TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (2001)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 12:02, 13 April 2011 by Ebingle (talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Situation== *TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement **At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at smal...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Situation

  • TurboCare has a patent for a "shaft sealing system for fluid turbines," sues GE for infringement
    • At high loads, a spring is compressed and a seal is made at small clearance position, but when the load is small (not in operation) the spring depresses and the device shifts to a large clearance position, eliminating any rubbing damage problem

Issue

  • TurboCare originally claimed "flat, s-shaped springs" but stated that "a considerable variety of springs can be employed" - he amends this during prosecution to say that "flat springs and others can be employed," because GE's machines used flat springs.
    • Is this new matter, or simply a clarification of original claims?
    • Appellate court says that there is an "issue of fact" as to whether new matter was added - so they remand back to the trial court