Opinion ID: 393342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 On July 2, 1958, plaintiff filed an application for a patent on a method for constructing a sand drain 3 with a helical continuous flight auger. After a number of rejections, plaintiff's application was allowed in July 9, 1963, as Patent No. 3,096,622. Claim 4 of the patent concerns the use of a cork-screw type auger for making sand drains. The auger helically penetrates the soil and is withdrawn vertically with a core of soil contained in the auger. Upon withdrawal of the soil, sand or some other porous material is placed in the cavity to prevent the walls of the hole from collapsing and to permit water to flow through the drain. 4 3 On September 3, 1978, Landau filed suit against J.D. Barter Construction Co., Sangamo Construction Co., and Sam Barter for infringement of Claim 4 of the patent. In response, defendants asserted the affirmative defense of patent invalidity. Specifically, defendants contend that Landau's helical continuous flight auger and sand drain were part of the prior art on the date of the alleged invention. They argue that the auger described in Claim 4 is a type of auger which had been sold by manufacturing companies for many years before a manufacturer named KA-MO Tools began selling it in 1945. Defendants maintain that publications predating by more than one year plaintiff's application for a patent on July 2, 1958, described the use of augers in the construction of sand drains. See, e. g., U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services, Study of Deep Soil Stabilization by Vertical Sand Drains, Bulletin PB 151692 (1958). Defendants have also offered as exhibits additional publications and patents which they contend constitute prior art anticipatory of plaintiff's patent. 4 Plaintiff seeks to distinguish his patent from the alleged prior art by asserting that construction of a sand drain through helical cutting is to be differentiated from boring or drilling such a drain. 5 He compares helical cutting with turning a common cork-screw into a cork; for each turn of the auger it descends the distance between its flights into the ground. This cork-screw method creates a core of earth, which can be withdrawn more or less intact and replaced with sand to produce a sand drain. 6 According to Landau, this cork-screw method employs fewer auger revolutions per unit distance of penetration than the old boring methods and greatly increases sand-draining efficiency. 7 Finally, plaintiff contends that the commercial success of the auger confirms the validity of his patent. 8 5 In addition to asserting the invalidity of Landau's patent, defendants filed a counterclaim which includes the charge that Landau committed fraud on the Patent Office by failing to disclose to the patent examiner all of the relevant prior art. Defendants also allege that Landau failed to submit certain letters written during the pendency of his patent application which discussed the use of sand drains in connection with certain construction projects in Texas. 6 Landau argues that the patent application included all relevant references to the state of the prior art and that the documents noted by defendants were only cumulative of the sources included in the application. He also contends that none of the asserted prior art references have been shown to be anticipatory of, or even pertinent to, the Landau invention.