GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

Citation351 F. Supp. 872
Decision Date03 October 1972
Docket NumberC 67-206.,No. C 36799,C 36799
PartiesThe GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
ORDER

BATTISTI, Chief Judge.

Pursuant to the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the accompanying judgment order amends the final paragraph of this Court's memorandum opinion and order of June 26, 1972, 349 F.Supp. 345.

It is so ordered.

JUDGMENT ORDER

It is hereby ordered and adjudged:

1. That this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of these actions.

2. That United States Letters Patent No. 2,964,083 was duly and lawfully issued and has since been owned by the General Tire and Rubber Company.

3. That claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, 14, 17-19 and 22 of said patent in suit, the representative claims here in issue, are in all respects valid and enforceable.

4. That Stock A, Blend 2 and Blend 5, the representative tread stocks here in issue, infringe each of representative claims 13, 14, 17-19 and 22 and when applied as the vulcanized tread portion of a pneumatic tire they infringe each of representative claims 1, 3-5, and 7.

5. That the subject matter of said patent in suit is not and has never been licensed to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, either expressly or impliedly.

6. That a writ of injunction issue out of and under the seal of this Court, directed to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and those in privity with them, enjoining and restraining them from directly or indirectly infringing claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13, 14, 17-19 and 22 of United States Letters Patent No. 2,964,083, and from inducing, aiding, abetting, advertising, or in any way contributing to the infringement of said patent claims.

7. That the General Tire and Rubber Company recover from the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company the damages to which it is entitled by law for the infringement of said patent in suit, together with such attorneys' fees, punative damages, expenses, costs and interest as after the report of the Special Master may be determined and awarded by this Court.

8. That these actions are hereby referred to a Special Master to be designated by this Court to make and render an accounting as to the extent of infringement by defendant of said ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company, Civ. A. No. 41762.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 5 Octubre 1973
    ...foreclosed by paragraph 12(b) could not come into existence until January 1, 1973. Armstrong, citing General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire Co., 351 F. Supp. 872 (N.D.Ohio 1972), contends that the termination of the agreement makes no difference with respect to whether the agreement co......
  • General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 3 Octubre 1972
    ...Cleveland, Ohio, Stanley M. Clark, David A. Thomas, Akron, Ohio, for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Judgment Order October 3, 1972. See 351 F.Supp. 872. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND BATTISTI, Chief Judge. This is a rather complex patent case, perhaps the most protracted in existence anywhere in the ......
  • Johns-Manville Corp. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 20 Diciembre 1983
    ...four corners of a single reference." General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 349 F.Supp. 345, 356, modified, 351 F.Supp. 872 (N.D. Ohio 1972), modified, 489 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 2643, 41 L.Ed.2d 235 Guardian makes a convoluted two-......
  • Taussig v. JACK & JILL ONE HOUR CLEANERS, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 13 Septiembre 1978
    ...could be made out from the reference. General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 349 F.Supp. 345, 356, modified, 351 F.Supp. 872 (N.D.Ohio 1972), aff'd in pertinent part, rev'd in part, and vacated in part, 489 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 2......
  • 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