The Q-Panel Company v. Stephen E. Newfield, 482 F.2d 210, 10th Cir. (1973)

482 F.
2d 210
178 U.S.P.Q. 521
The Q-PANEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
Stephen E. NEWFIELD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 72-1540.
United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 28, 1973.
Decided July 2, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 1973.
Arthur L. Cain of Bosworth, Sessions, Herrstrom & Cain, Cleveland, Ohio

(Ronald A. Ginsburg, Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for plaintiffappellant.
James E. Snead, of Jones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, Santa Fe, N. M.,
for defendant-appellee.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, DURFEE, * Judge, Court of Claims, and
HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.
LEWIS, Chief Judge.
This appeal reaches us as a side effect of an action tried in the District Court for
the District of New Mexico. In the main case plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a
judgment declaring United States Patent No. 3,500,682 issued to defendant
Newfield to be invalid for obviousness and further dismissing Newfield's
counterclaim for alleged infringement. The single dispositive appellate question
is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to recover attorney
fees under the authority of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 285. The cited statute provides:
2 court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing
The
party.
3
The trial court's findings and conclusions contain nothing relating to any
The trial court's findings and conclusions contain nothing relating to any
alleged fraud on the part of Newfield in obtaining the patent and plaintiff's
proposed findings, which would supply a premise for the allowance of attorney
fees, were refused by the trial court.
The allowance of attorney fees in a case such as this is not only left to the
primary discretion of the trial court but that court's discretion is severely limited
in the first instance to allowance only in "exceptional cases." Thus plaintiff has
the double burden in this court of clearly establishing the existence of an
exceptional case and the abuse of discretion by the trial court in not awarding
attorney fees. This dual burden is a heavy one, for the awarding of attorney fees
in patent cases must be the exception and not the rule.
A finding that a patent is invalid because obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art is not a sufficient premise to trigger an award of attorney fees. The statute
contemplates such misconduct upon the part of the losing party as to constitute
fraud on the Patent Office or so unfair and reckless as to make it
unconscionable for the prevailing party to sustain the expense of counsel. See
Purer & Co. v. Aktiebolaget Addo, 9 Cir., 410 F.2d 871, cert. denied, 396 U.S.
834, 90 S.Ct. 90, 24 L.Ed.2d 84. Even less than candid conduct will not dictate
the award. Indiana General Corp. v. Krystinel Corp., 2 Cir., 421 F.2d 1023,
cert. denied, 398 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 1820, 26 L.Ed.2d 91.
From our review of the record we would term the circumstances leading to the
granting of the subject patent to defendant as unusual and containing overtones
of loose procedure (particularly in regard to disclosures of the prior art) but not
such as would require the trial court to find that plaintiff was abused in an
extraordinary case through defendant's conduct and as a matter of law.
Newfield was employed by the United States Navy at the Mare Island Shipyard
Paint Laboratory in San Francisco from June 22, 1964 to April 7, 1967. During
this period Newfield was engaged in the testing of paint and other surface
coatings. He thus became knowledgeable on the operation and construction of
three prominent accelerated weathering testers, the Atlas Twin Arc WeatherOmeter, the Salt Fog Cabinet, and the Cleveland Condensing Humidity
Cabinet. All three of these devices are designed to simulate weathering factors
and accelerate the consequent effects upon various surface coatings.
During the course of his employment at Mare Island, Newfield concluded that
the Atlas Weather-Ometer, the Salt Fog Cabinet and the Cleveland Humidity
Cabinet did not individually produce results which correlated with natural
weathering effects. Newfield did obtain better results by utilizing the three
machines in various sequential combinations. The rotation process, however,

was slow and cumbersome. Additionally, it was not able to duplicate the
extreme corrosive effect of simultaneous exposure to ultraviolet light and
condensation which Newfield had observed in the weather conditions of the
San Francisco Bay area. Consequently, Newfield constructed a prototype of the
machine covered by the patent in issue. His purpose in this endeavor was to
design a single device which would expose coated test panels to both ultraviolet
light and condensation and accomplish exposure to these two forces
alternatively either in separate cycles or simultaneously.
9
Newfield claimed that the ability of the prototype and the patented apparatus to
simultaneously combine exposure to condensation and ultraviolet light was
unique. The record does not refute this.1 The subsequent judicial determination
that the subject matter of each patent claim was obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art lends little support to any contention of fraud in the basic
representation of inventiveness.
10
Newfield was represented by and relied on Navy patent attorneys throughout

the patent application process. Although Newfield on his own initiative
submitted a patent rights questionnaire and an invention disclosure form to the
Navy while he was employed at Mare Island, it was a Navy patent attorney
who broached the subject of a patent application. The attorney, Paul Critchlow,
encountered some difficulty in locating Newfield because the latter had
terminated his employment with the Navy and changed his address. When he
was finally able to contact Newfield, Critchlow stated that he wanted to file a
patent application. The entire patent application procedure was handled by
Navy patent attorneys and all communications between these attorneys and
Newfield were in the form of written correspondence. Newfield's patent granted
the United States a royalty-free license to manufacture and use the patented
device.
11
Certainly these facts are not illustrative of the typical attorney-client

relationship in which an attorney is both a faithful advocate whose loyalty to his
client is undiluted by the interests of others and an objective counselor whose
advice warns of any legal pitfalls which might beset the client. During the
patent application process, Newfield was represented by attorneys whose
loyalty to him was diluted because of their positions as government attorneys.
Even though both Newfield and the government had a mutual interest in the
issuance of a patent, the government was not faced with the same risks as a
patent applicant. As a consequence, Newfield did not have the benefit of
interviews and personal contact with counsel whose sole concern was analysis
of the facts from the viewpoint of a patent applicant and whose advice could
have averted the legal problems raised in this litigation. Although Newfield
cannot avoid all responsibility for the acts of the Navy attorneys, this atypical
attorney-client relationship illuminates facts which otherwise might indicate
deceptive conduct and is relevant in determining whether the instant case is an
exceptional one under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 285.
12
The trial court indicated that deficiencies in the patent application were
attributable to the Navy and its lawyers and that defendant did not knowingly
participate in any conduct intended to deceive the Patent Office.
13
The court further stated that "under the circumstances indicated by the record"
defendant should not be considered knowledgeable of the intricacies of patent
law, nor imputed to be so, and had obtained the patent "by means which
appeared proper and correct under the circumstances." Although these
expressed views by the trial court were not entered as formal findings, they
suffice to show a basis for the court's refusal to allow recovery of attorney fees.
14
All other contentions made by either plaintiff or defendant have been

considered and determined to be without dispositive merit. The judgment is
affirmed.
Sitting by designation
Neither the Salt Fog Cabinet nor the Cleveland Humidity Cabinet exposes
coated test panels to ultraviolet light. Another prominent weathering tester, the
Golden Gate Cabinet, applies only ultraviolet light. The Atlas Weather-Ometer
accomplishes exposure to ultraviolet light and condensation in separate cycles.
The evidence was inconclusive regarding the ability of this machine to
simultaneously expose test panels to these two forces. The documentary
evidence neither established nor ruled out the possibility of concurrent exposure
in the Atlas Weather-Ometer. Certain testimony, however, tended to negate the
possibility of simultaneous exposure because the relative humidity would
always be too low to cause condensation during the period of exposure to light.
Additionally, the testimony differentiated the process of condensation from the
mere application of water and further emphasized the corrosive effect of
condensation. Moreover, even though the district court found that a publication
printed prior to Newfield's invention discussed simultaneous application of
water and ultraviolet light and that the Atlas Weather-Ometer simultaneously
exposed test panels to humidity and ultraviolet light, the court made no finding
with respect to the prior art's simultaneous application of condensation and
ultraviolet light

The Q-Panel Company v. Stephen E. Newfield, 482 F.2d 210, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Q-Panel Company v. Stephen E. Newfield, 482 F.2d 210, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Q-Panel Company v. Stephen E. Newfield, 482 F.2d 210, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

482 F.

The Q-PANEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals,

Arthur L. Cain of Bosworth, Sessions, Herrstrom & Cain, Cleveland, Ohio

machines in various sequential combinations. The rotation process, however,

Newfield was represented by and relied on Navy patent attorneys throughout

Certainly these facts are not illustrative of the typical attorney-client

All other contentions made by either plaintiff or defendant have been

You might also like