Garlock Sealing Technologies
 |
|
| Subsidiary of EnPro Industries | |
| Industry | Manufacturing |
| Founded | Palmyra, New York, US (1887) |
| Founder | Olin J. Garlock |
| Headquarters | Palmyra, New York, US |
| Products | Gasketing, Klozure Dynamic Seals, Hydraulic Components, Expansion Joints, Compression Packing |
| Website | www.garlock.com |
Garlock Sealing Technologies, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries, produces Klozure Dynamic Seals and other sealing products. Garlock has a global presence, with 1,887 employees, at 15 facilities, in eight countries.
In the later nineteenth century, Olin J. Garlock devised a better way to seal piston rods in industrial steam engines; this ingenuity led to the creation of Garlock Sealing Technologies. Founded in 1887, in Palmyra, New York, Garlock has become a leader in the fluid sealing industry and a cornerstone of the EnPro Industries family.
For a complete history of Garlock see "Garlock-The First Eighty-Eight Years 1887-1975" by R.M. Waples, Sr. and R.M. Waples, Jr.
Various industries utilize Garlock’s products because Garlock can accommodate most applications. These assorted product offerings allow Garlock to fulfil the needs of a diverse customer base.
Garlock provides fluid sealing solutions for the following industries: petrochemical, chemical processing, and refining, pulp and paper, power generation, electronics, steel mills, food and pharmaceutical, mining and original equipment manufacturers.
Some of Garlock's sealing products include KLOZURE oil seals, bearing isolators and mechanical seals; GYLON gasketing, CEFIL'AIR pneumatic seals and HELICOFLEX metal seals; sheet rubber products, valve and pump packing, hydraulic seals, molded rubber products, and expansion joints. Some of these products have US and International patent protection, including Australia.
In the 1970s, Garlock infringed W. L. Gore and Associates patents and was sued by Gore in the Federal District Court of Ohio. After a "bitterly contested case" that "involved over two years of discovery, five weeks of trial, the testimony of 35 witnesses (19 live, 16 by deposition), and over 300 exhibits," (quoting the Federal Circuit) the District Court held Gore's patents to be invalid. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit disagreed in the famous case of Gore v. Garlock, reversing the lower court's decision on the ground, inter alia, that Cropper forfeited any superior claim to the invention by virtue of having concealed the process for making ePTFE from the public, thereby establishing Gore as the legal inventor.
...
Wikipedia