Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

125 F.3d 1448 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The '636 patent issued on October 26, 1993, and claims an aqueous reverse-flow cooling system for internal combustion engines. John Evans, the named inventor, admits he conceived the patented invention in 1984 and reduced it to practice in 1986. Evans did not file a patent application until July 1, 1992. In 1994, P filed the present lawsuit alleging that D infringed the '636 patent by the manufacture and sale of cars having GM's 'LT1' and 'L99' engines. D asserted that the '636 patent was invalid because D and its independent dealers had placed the patented invention on sale prior to the critical date with the introduction of its 1992 Corvette. D sent an 'Order Guide' for the 1992 Corvette to its independent dealers in late April or early May 1991 to be used for ordering the vehicle described in the Order Guide. D sent a supplemental brochure that provided additional ordering information for the 1992 Corvette, specifically stating that the car had reverse flow engine cooling. D produced computer records documenting over 2000 orders placed by dealers around the country for the 1992 Corvette before the critical date. D introduced evidence regarding a retail customer named Aram Najarian who visited a Corvette dealer and on June 1991. Najarian entered into a contract with a D dealer on June 13, 1991, in which D agreed to sell and Najarian agreed to buy a Corvette with an LT1 engine. Najarian was informed that the price would be up to $2000 higher than the 1991 model and he placed a deposit on the car at that time. D sent back an acknowledgment on June 14, 1991. P claimed that D stole the invention from P. D allegedly requested that P demonstrate its aqueous reverse-flow cooling system at D's test facility in the spring of 1989, and P alleges that D stole the invention during this demonstration. The court granted summary judgment in favor of D. P appealed.