Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1911 |
| Docket Number | 1,261. |
| Citation | 189 F. 402 |
| Parties | METALLIC RUBBER TIRE CO. v. HARTFORD RUBBER WORKS CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Alfred Wilkinson and John H. Roney, for complainant.
Ernest Hopkinson and Edward W. Vaill, for defendant.
This is the usual bill in equity, asking for injunction and accounting, based upon letters patent to Calvin T. Adams, No 609,320, issued August 16, 1898, for a vehicle tire.
The defenses are invalidity, irregularity of issue noninfringement, and lack of equity.
The first thing to settle is what the inventive concept of Adams was, and what he claimed under it. In discussing that we must not forget that the Adams' concept was formed in 1895 when the bicycle was in vogue and the heavy motor car of to-day was a vague uncertainty. His mind was concerned with bicycles alone, and nothing else, except possibly tires of a similar character. We must go to the file wrapper to learn what he did. He wanted to show how the tires of bicycles and 'other wheeled vehicles' (in which latter phrase he undoubtedly had in mind carriage wheels) could be so treated as to retain their resiliency, and at the same time be prevented from slipping on smooth and wet roadways. The yielding tires of bicycles had up to that time, he says, been provided with spikes extending well beyond the head, so as to penetrate and give a locking hold upon ice, but these could not be used on roadways without destroying the tire or making it hard work to propel the machine. Such tires had also been provided with external metallic fittings to bear on the ground when the tire is compressed, but such fittings were too heavy, expensive, and complicated. His idea was to provide a tread for the yielding tire which would not add much to the weight or expense of the tire, could be easily applied, would last, would not slip on smooth or wet roadways, and would not 'materially increase the labor of propulsion. ' His way of doing it was to weave into the yielding material of the tread wire which should appear every now and then flush with the surface, and at other points be embedded within the material of the tread, or to embed within the material of the treads studs of metal or other hard substance which should come up flush with the surface. In this way he expected that the metal would get a grip on the roadway and prevent slipping, but at the same time the tread and metal would readily yield with the tire and permit the flexible material of the tread to act as a cushion.
He then proceeded to tell people how to carry his idea into practice. He made pictures of pneumatic bicycle tires embodying his invention, both on the surface and in cross-sections.
His cross-section (Fig. 2) shows the hard bearings C C C made by weaving or stitching metallic wire through the tread in lines running lengthwise of the tread (as shown in Fig. 1), so that the wire is alternately flush with the surface and embedded within the material of the tread. He then explains that the wire being interwoven with the material of the tread will remain securely therein after the exposed portion has worn off, and that the exposed ends will then act in the same way as the hard bearings. This is the nearest he comes to the idea of 'cat's claws.' He appears to have thought that some virtue would be left in his hard bearings, even after they were worn apart, but that was an incidental, and not a substantive, thought. In his cross-section (Fig. 3) he shows his hard bearings made by sticking metal studs into the yielding material of the tread, so that their heads would come flush with the roadway and act like the exposed portions of the metal wire in Fig. 2. (That hard bearing would, of course, always be ready for work, no matter how much the material of the tread should wear away, and he would not have to face the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co., 165.
...and an accounting; the plaintiff claiming as assignee of the patent. The lower court dismissed the bill on the ground of noninfringement. 189 F. 402. appeal to this court in 1912 the patent was held valid and infringed, the decree below was reversed, and the cause remanded, with instruction......
-
Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.
...It may be found in the following summary: The suit was brought March 5, 1908, and on July 27, 1911, Judge Platt dismissed the bill. 189 F. 402. Upon appeal, Circuit Court of Appeals, on November 11, 1912, reversed the Circuit Court, and remanded the case, with instructions to enter a decree......
-
Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.
...Tire Company against the Hartford Rubber Works Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Reversed. For opinion below, see 189 F. 402. (s 328*)-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- VEHICLE TIRE. The Adams patent, No. 609,320, for a vehicle tire, comprising a pneumatic tire having wire......