Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Citation147 F. 739
Decision Date20 July 1906
Docket Number8,992.
PartiesCONSOLIDATED RUBBER TIRE CO. et al. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

Thomas W. Bakewell, Paul A. Staley, and Border Bowman, for complainants.

Charles L. Linthicum, for defendant.

PLATT District Judge.

This is a patent suit in the usual form, alleging infringement of Grant patent, No. 554,675, February 18, 1896, for a rubber tire. Judge Thomas sustained this patent in Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Col. Pneu. W. Co. (C.C.) 91 F. 978, and wrote a well-sustained opinion in support of his conclusion. The defeated parties in that cause have become by business arrangements connected with the complainants in the present suit.

Several other judges followed the reasoning presented by Judge Thomas, until it happened that Judge Wing had the matter up in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division, and on December 9, 1901, he came, after an independent examination, to the same conclusion. His decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 6, 1902. 116 F. 363, 53 C.C.A. 583. That tribunal was composed of very able and learned judges, from whose opinion it would be unwise to differ, unless the opposite conclusion were so obvious as to compel the mind and conscience. Judge Thomas, in sustaining the patent, was convinced that in a general way no tire prior to Grant really did what Grant's tire did; that it required Grant's specific combination of parts to accomplish his results; that all combinations except Grant's lack harmony and disclose discordant notes; that therefore Grant did more than select and aggregate; that he actually invented something. He found among other things, that the specific arrangement of channel and tire was such that the rubber tire, when sharply compressed on either side, had a tendency to rock, or tilt in the channel-iron; one wire acting as a pivot and the other as a retaining force, so that the tire would reseat itself. This he thought was functional and inherent in the device when made according to the specifications.

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, found the turning point in the case to be at that point. They concede that if the old parts selected from old combinations perform a new function, or operate in a new way to produce a new and beneficial result, enough will have appeared to constitute invention. They say that the rocking and reseating idea is not expressed in the specifications, and that it is not necessarily present in the device made under them because the retaining wires must not be so tight that the wire would break or the rubber be cut before the tilting and reseating could take place, and must be loose enough to permit the rubber to move slightly, but not so loose as to permit the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 11, 1912
    ...by the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York sustaining the patent, in a case against the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (147 F. 739), which was affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Judicial Circuit (151 F. 237, 80 C.C.A. 589), and the other by the same courts ......
  • Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 7, 1907
    ... ... and licensee under the Grant patent of February 18, 1896, No ... 554,675, for improvements in rubber-tired wheels. Defendant ... is not a manufacturer, but handles and sells rubber tires for ... wheeled vehicles. The patent was before this court in ... Firestone Tire Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co ... (C.C.A.) 151 F. 237. It was held that the patent was ... valid, and that certain tires then before it were ... infringements. On the application for preliminary injunction ... in the case at bar, it appeared that defendant had sold tires ... in all ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT