January i, 1902.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER ^A^ORLD 



109 



DECISIONS IN TIRE PATENT CASES. 



A SOLID TIRE DECISION. 



A DECISION was handed down in the patent infringe- 

 ment case, The Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. The Good- 

 year Tire and Rubber Co,, on November 23, by Judge 

 Wing, in the United States circuit court for the north- 

 ern district of Ohio, at Toledo. The complaint alleged in- 

 fringement of United States patent No. 554,675, issued February 

 18, 1896, to Arthur W. Grant and by him assigned to the Rub- 

 ber Ttre Wheel Co. A supplemental bill was filed by the Con- 

 solidated Rubber Tire Co., the purpose of which was to show 

 the relation of that corporation to The Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 

 but the ownership of the patent was alleged to be still in the 

 original complainant. This point, by the way, was disputed in 

 the pleadings, but no serious contention was made on that 

 issue at the hearing. 



Judge Wing, in his decision, refers to the opinion of Judge 

 Thomas, in the case of The Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. The 

 Columbia Pneumatic Wagon Wheel Co., rendered December 

 27, 1898, in the United States circuit court for the southern 

 district of New York, in which the validity of the Grant patent 

 was sustained. Judge Wing proceeds to say : 



In view of the able and elaborate opinion delivered by Judge 

 Thomas, I do not deem it necessary to go into particularities with respect 

 to the reasons for my conclusion. Suffice it to say that, upon an inde- 

 pendent examination of the record, I have come to the conclusion, 

 which, in brief, is this : That, while the elements of the complainants' 

 combination are, each of them, old and well known, this particular com- 

 bination of shape of rubber and of flange, and the position of the re- 

 taining wires, has not been shown in any previous patents or other pub- 

 lications. 



The opinion proceeds to state that the infringement of the 

 defendants is clear. While they urged in defense that they 

 were operating under a patent issued to Burrows, the proof 

 showed that the device described in the Burrows patent is not 

 that which the defendants had been using in the manufacture 

 of their " wing " tire. 



Following this judgment, a permanent injunction was or- 

 dered to issue against any further infringement by the Goodyear 

 Tire and Rubber Co., who thereupon presented an application 

 for an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals. 

 The appeal was allowed, and the Goodyear company signed a 

 supersedeas bond for $100,000, under which they will be per- 

 mitted to manufacture tires as before, while the case is pend- 

 ing in the court of appeals — this amount to cover all profits and 

 damages that the complainants may prove themselves to be en- 

 titled to, in the event that the final decision should be in their 

 favor. The Goodyear company have issued a circular to the 

 trade, guaranteeing protection to their customers, and to The 

 India Rubber World they say : " We have every confidence 

 that the finding of the court of appeals will be in our favor 

 upon the question of infringement. In the meantime our bus- 

 iness is in no way afTected." 



THE KELLY TIRE WINS IN FRANCE. 

 On November 22 in the third chamber of the Palais de 

 Justice, in Paris, was decided the case of Boudin v. Rouy, the 

 former representing The Rubber Tire Wheel Co. (Springfield, 

 Ohio) and the latter a manufacturer, Loubiere, of 62, rue Des- 

 renaudes. The suit was one for damages for alleged infringe- 

 ment, by Loubiere, of the Grant patent on solid rubber vehi- 

 cle tires, which, in France, was issued April 10, 1896, under 



No. 252,731, the same relating to what is known in America 

 as the " Kelly-Springfield " tire. The decision was for the 

 plaintiff. It had been set up by the defense that each of the 

 parts and processes employed by The Rubber Tire Wheel Co. 

 in the construction of their tire had become public property. 

 E-Kpert testimony, however, established the novelty of certain 

 details, beside which the court held that a novel combination 

 of known means is patentable, provided that the article pro- 

 duced by the combination is of industrial utility. On the other 

 hand, certain claims of the patent were declared invalid, on 

 account of publication in the United States in 1894. But on 

 the whole the court holds the patent valid and to have been 

 infringed by Loubiere, who is condemned to pay a preliminary 

 sum of 1000 francs damages, and such further sum as may be 

 fixed by a board of experts, together with all costs. It is un- 

 derstood that an appeal will be made. 



TILLINGHAST PATENT DECISION CONFIRMED. 

 The United States circuit court of appeals for the first cir- 

 cuit (New England) on December 12 handed down a decision 

 affirming the decree of Judge Colt — of date November 14, 1899 

 — sustaining the Tillinghast patent on single tube pneumatic 

 tires. The patent involved is No. 497,971, granted May 23, 

 1893, to Pardon W. Tillinghast. The claims in controversy, as 

 they appear in the patent specification, are as follows: 



1. A pneumatic tire, consisting of a rubber'air tube, and outer cover- 

 ing, substantially as specified, with the ends of the air tube and other 

 component parts securely united by vulcanization, substantially as de- 

 scribed, thereby constituting an integral complete tire. 



2. A pneumatic tire composed of a rubber tube, an intermediate layer 

 of fabric, and an outer covering of rubber, having all its rubber joints 

 and component parts simultaneously vulc.inized together, forming an in- 

 tegral annular tire. 



The decision of Judge Colt, referred to above, was rendered 

 in the case of Theodore A. Dodge v. Fred Howard Porter, if/^i/., 

 and the case on appeal is styled Fred Howard Porter et al., de- 

 fendants, appellants, v. Single Tube Automobile and Bicycle 

 Tire Co., complainant, appellee— ownership of the Tillinghast 

 patents having passed to the latter corporation. The case on 

 appeal was heard before Judges Putnam, Aldrich, and Brown, 

 whose opinion follows : 



Pel Curiam. It was not contended at the hearing either in the court 

 below or before us, that the publication by Boothroyd, of Decembers, 

 1890, anticipated the invention in litigation. Neither are we sufficiently 

 advised whether the record is in condition to properly determine such a 

 contention if made. We give no intimation of what our conclusion 

 would be if, in those respects, the conditions were other than what they 

 are. 



We are of the opinion that Claim 2 fully and correctly represents the 

 invention of the patent, and that Claim i is too broad to be valid. 



With these reservations, after thorough investigation and careful con- 

 sideration of the record, we concur in the conclusion of the circuit court, 

 and with the line of reasoning by which the conclusion was reached. 



The decree of the court below is modified so far as to adjudge Claim 

 I invalid, and the case is remanded to that court with directions to pro- 

 ceed accordingly ; and the appellee recovers the cost of appeal. 



" It is needless to say that we are very much pleased with the 

 recent decision," said a member of the Single Tube Automo- 

 bile and Bicycle Tire Co. to The India Rubber World, "as 

 the sustaining of Claim 2 of the Tillinghast patent No. 497,971 

 is a complete victory for this company, and all that could have 

 been desired. We are unable to understand why the court felt 



