Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 17 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 175. |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED RUBBER TIRE CO. et al. v. DIAMOND RUBBER CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
The decree of the District Court confirmed the report of the master finding that the infringement of the Grant patent, No 554,675, beginning with the year 1905 and continuing until February 17, 1913, was 'deliberate, continuous and wanton.' The master also found that a minimum license fee of five cents per pound for rubber tire was established by the complainant and this license fee was adopted by the master as a fair measure of the damages sustained by the complainant on account of the infringement. At the rate of five cents per pound upon 2,607,835 pounds of rubber tire used by the defendant, the amount due the complainant was found by the master to be $130,391.75.
The master also made an alternative finding to the third finding which is as follows:
This report was reviewed by Judge Learned Hand upon exceptions filed by the defendant and a careful opinion considering all the questions now mooted was rendered with the result that he not only agreed with the master as to the amount awarded but added thereto $50,000, 'to pay the costs of the litigation and give the plaintiffs smart money, in addition to the actual damages, as damages. ' He also added $26,869.89 as interest. 226 F. 455.
On this appeal taken by the defendant from the decree entered upon the master's report, to quote from defendant's brief 'The only questions in the case are as to what damages if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover, and (if damages are to be recovered) from what date interest is to begin to run.'
Charles Neave, of New York City, for appellant.
Charles W. Stapleton, of New York City (George W. Wickersham, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
COXE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Few patents have been subjected to such violent and persistent attacks as the Grant patent in suit. For 18 years it has been discussed by the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeal and many District Courts and the efficacy and value of the invention have been, of late years at least, almost universally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruth v. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co.
...v. Ludlum Steel Co. (D.C.N.Y.) 16 F.(2d) 823; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. (D.C.N.Y.) 226 F. 455, affirmed (C.C.A.) 232 F. 475. See, also, 48 C.J. I conclude, as a matter of law, that Stearns-Roger was guilty of contributory infringement with respect to those parts whi......
-
Faulkner v. Gibbs, 13120.
...342, 64 L.Ed. 415; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 226 F. 455, 458, 459, affirmed by 2 Cir., 232 F. 475; cf. Wedge v. Waynesboro Nurseries, Inc., D.C.W.D.Va., 31 F.Supp. 638, 642-643; see United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U.S. 319, 349-350......
-
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.
... ... et al. No. 2529.United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.April 9, 1918 ... Charles ... Neave, of New York City, and Samuel E. Hibben, of Chicago, ... Ill., for appellant ... Charles ... W. Stapleton, of New York City, for appellees ... The Grant patent was issued February 18, 1896, and its ... validity was sustained by the Supreme Court April 10, 1911 ... See Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire ... Co., 220 U.S. 428, 31 Sup.Ct. 444, 55 L.Ed. 527. This ... patent traveled a rocky road, its validity ... ...
-
Union Electric Welding Co. v. Curry
... ... Samuel ... Owen Edmonds, of New York City, and Wilbur Owen, of Toledo, ... Ohio, for ... Valve Co. v. Consolidated Co., 141 U.S. 441, 12 Sup.Ct ... 49, 35 L.Ed ... 136 F. 873; Consolidated Co. v. Diamond Co. (C.C.A ... 2) 232 F. 475, 146 C.C.A. 469, ... ...