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

Decision Date30 January 1907
Docket Number223.
Citation151 F. 237
PartiesCONSOLIDATED RUBBER TIRE CO. et al. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Chas C. Linthicum, Charles K. Offield, and Phillip B. Adams, for appellant.

Border Bowman, Thos. W. Bakewell, Charles W. Stapleton, and Paul A Staley, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

COXE Circuit Judge.

The literature of the Grant patent, in so far as it relates to the situation before the commencement of the present action will be found in the prior adjudications. The arguments for and against the patent will be found admirably stated by Judge Thomas in the Columbia Case and by Judge Lurton in the Goodyear Case, respectively. To this discussion little can be added on either side. We shall endeavor, therefore, to confine our attention mainly to the new facts and features which have been added to or developed from the records in the earlier cases.

Grant's claims cover combinations composed of elements which, when considered separately, were all old, but which were combined by him to form a structure, which, for the first time, placed in the hands of vehicle owners a perfect rubber tire. From the crudities, oddities, total failures and partial successes which had preceded him he constructed a tire which became popular almost from its inception. This was not the result of chance or the haphazard selection of parts; his success could only have been achieved by a careful study of the scientific and mechanical problems necessary to overcome the defects which rendered the then existing tires ineffective and useless. The problems demanded the exercise of faculties far above those possessed by the skilled mechanic. Few patents have received such immediate and well-nigh unanimous recognition. For years carriage manufacturers had been making strenuous efforts in this country and in Europe to secure a practical rubber tire. The moment Grant's structure appeared it was adopted by all the large manufacturers and to-day it is no exaggeration to say that no successful rubber tire can be made without embodying the distinguishing features of the Grant patent. Persistent efforts have been made to evade it but without success. The tire described and claimed in the Grant patent is the standard rubber tire of to-day. This popularity may be accounted for in part by the financial ability of the owners of the patent to promote sales, but it was a most inconspicuous part. The hard-headed men of trade do not place themselves in a position where they must accept the alternative of an infringement suit or the payment of license fees for the use of an article, when an equally good article may be had for nothing. It should be and is the desire of the court in approaching the consideration of a patent for a structure which has thus won a position of unchallenged supremacy in the commercial world, to endeavor to sustain rather than defeat the claims. The combination of the patent operates, we think, to produce a new result or an old result in a manner which is a vast improvement over anything in the prior art. The Grant tire has the capacity, which no other possesses, of readjusting itself, after yielding to severe lateral strain, without tearing or abrasion of the rubber or injury to any of the parts.

The Circuit Court of Appeals found that the new mode of operation which produces this result is not mentioned in the specification or inherent in the combination but depends for its discovery upon the ingenuity of experts. Recognizing the rule that one who has invented a structure which cannot be used without including the function which produces the new result, is entitled to all the uses of his invention whether known to him or not, the court says:

'If this tipping capacity had been pointed out and even this indefinite direction given by the patentee as to the mode of securing that operation, the patent might possibly be saved.'

It now appears that the feature which secures patentability is inherent in the patent, and the specification is so clear and explicit that no intelligent mechanic can follow Grant's directions without securing the tipping action which inheres in no other tire. This feature is neither an accident nor 'an obscure property'; it exists in every wheel on which is mounted a tire which follows the teaching of the patent. In view of this new...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co., 6034.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 7, 1933
    ...leads me to the conclusion that this court should endeavor to sustain rather than defeat the claims. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (C. C. A.) 151 F. 237, 238, affirmed by Supreme Court, Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consol. Tire Co., 220 U. S. 428, 31 S. Ct. 444, 55 L.......
  • Lowell v. Triplett, 3816.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 3, 1935
    ...In subsequent litigation the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held the patent to be valid. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 151 F. 237; also in Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. (C. C. A.) 162 F. 892. The Supreme Court held the pat......
  • Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co., Inc., 273.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 1922
    ......' Diamond, etc., Co. v. Consolidated, 220 U.S. 428, 434, 31 Sup.Ct. 444, 447 (55. ... (Consolidated, etc., Co. v. Firestone, etc., Co.,. 151 F. 237, 80 C.C.A. 589); and ......
  • Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 16, 1907
    ...... his assigns by the federal laws. Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co. (C.C.) 71 F. 302; U.S. Consolidated. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Griffin & Skelly Co., 126 F. 364,. 61 C.C.A. 334. For the protection of the physical or moral. health of its citizens a ...436, 48 L.Ed. 679. . . Grant. produced a new integer in the useful arts. See. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber. Co. (C.C.A., Second Circuit, February 1, 1907) 151 F. 237. [154 F. 363] . Plaintiff, as his successor in interest, is the owner ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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