Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Goodyear Co., 232 U.S. 413 (1914)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 232 U.S. 399, click here.

Rubber Tire Wheel Company v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
No. 37

Argued May 7, 1913
Decided February 24, 1914
232 U.S. 413

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

In Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, the Grant tire patent was sustained as a patentable combination, not as a mere aggregation of elements, but as a new combination of parts co-acting so as to produce a new and useful result; nor did the patentability depend on the novelty of any of the elements entering into it.

Where the combination is protected by such a patent, one manufacturing it by assembling the various elements and effecting the combination is not entitled to immunity from prosecution for infringing because he purchases one element from a party who is immune under a provision in a decree permitting it to sell the patented article itself. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, distinguished.

In this case, held that the immunity given by a provision in a decree to a specified party manufacturing and selling an article as a patentable combination producing new result is not transferable, and such party, although immune himself, cannot enjoin the prosecution of suit against another as an infringer because the later purchases from him one of the element used in manufacturing the article.

183 F. 978 reversed.

The facts, which involve the construction of a decree in a patent case and the extent and effect of the immunity granted thereunder to manufacture the patented article and the several elements thereof, are stated in the opinion.