Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1920
• Docket Number: 1261.
• Citation: 266 F. 543
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: METALLIC RUBBER TIRE CO. v. HARTFORD RUBBER WORKS CO.

266 F. 543

METALLIC RUBBER TIRE CO. v. HARTFORD RUBBER WORKS CO.

No. 1261.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

June 12, 1920

Henry F. Parmelee and George D. Watrous, both of New Haven, Conn for plaintiff.

Ernest Hopkinson and Charles S. Jones, both of New York City, for defendant.

THOMAS District Judge.

This matter is again before the court on exceptions to the master's second report. The plaintiff and defendant each filed exceptions. The plaintiff further filed a motion to strike out certain portions of the report, and, as thus modified, that the report be accepted and confirmed, and that a decree be granted for the plaintiff to recover $183,383.53 with interest from July 1, 1910.

A brief history of this case seems necessary. 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, the Circuit Court of Appeals, on November 11, 1912, reversed the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to enter a decree for the plaintiff for an injunction, an accounting, and costs. 200 F. 743, 119 C.C.A. 187.

This decision established the law of the case, and it has ever since been the law, and has been followed by this court. The case was then referred to the master, who began taking testimony on February 26, 1913, and proofs were closed November 9, 1914. His report finding that no profits had been realized by the defendant was filed September 20, 1915, and nominal damages were awarded. The case then came on for hearing on plaintiff's exceptions to the master's report, and decision rendered February 19, 1917, which was modified June 29, 1917, by which the exceptions were sustained and the case recommitted to the master to state an account in accordance with the opinion. 245 F. 860.

On this second reference, proofs were taken before the master and concluded October 4, 1917, and report filed January 31, 1920. There must be a speedy termination of this interminable litigation. The delay merits censure, and justly may a litigant complain of the delay, which is in no way the fault of or caused by this plaintiff.

The Circuit Court of Appeals, in holding the patent valid and infringed, said:

'This result is quite equitable, for the objection of invalidity comes with rather ill grace from a defendant which has had a license under a patent, and which, upon the expiration of the license, has put out a product which, even if not infringing, closely simulates the patented structure. In our opinion, moreover, the defendant's structure does infringe.'

So it is apparent that the defendant could have manufactured the infringing tires under the license agreement, and the plaintiff would have received the royalties therein provided, or the defendant could have refrained from infringing the patent, and the plaintiff, in the absence of such infringement, might have been able to make a profitable use of its own patent.

But the defendant preferred, immediately after the cancellation of the license agreement, to disregard the plaintiff's patent, and under protest to question its validity, and by its conduct effectually prevent plaintiff from exercising its own rights thereunder.

Manifestly the plaintiff has been...