Opinion ID: 2225574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: R.K.'s 2008 Motion for Permission to Modify a Commercially Available Valve Spool

Text: We issued our decision in Smeal I in May 2006. [101] In June, R.K. moved to dismiss the contempt action or to reopen the case for additional evidence. It relied on the Court of Appeals' opinion that key terms in the injunction were ambiguous as a matter of law. In September, R.K. filed a new motion for permission to modify a commercially available valve spool in a manner that would allow the pressure port to open before the tank port when the ladder was moving down. R.K. contended that its grinding would duplicate a commercially available valve spool. At the hearings on the motion for permission to modify a commercially available valve spool, the court took judicial notice of Whaley's testimony from the 1989 preliminary injunction hearing; his 2002 deposition, taken between hearings in the 2002 contempt proceeding; and the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing. The court stated that it was taking notice of this evidence because the Court of Appeals had concluded that the terms unbalanced control spool and fluid damper were ambiguous. In Whaley's 2002 deposition, exhibit 53, he was asked about the diagram of an ideal control valve admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing. He reiterated his testimony from that hearing that SFAC created a fluid damper to dissipate power surges in its valve by grinding the tank side of its valve spool to make an orifice that gradually opened to the tank port. Whaley stated that the term fluid damper in his written explanation of SFAC's trade secret referred to the modification that opened the tank side of the valve first, thus permitting hydraulic oil to flow to the tank side first. And he stated that the term unbalanced referred to the timing difference between the tank side opening before the pressure side. He specifically stated that his description did not refer to a modification that caused the pressure port to open first. After the hearing, the court found Smeal's evidence more credible and concluded that R.K. would not be using a commercially available spool if it permitted R.K.'s request to modify the spool.