Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911)

Diamond Rubber Company v.

Consolidated Rubber Tire Company
No. 36

Argued February 28, March 1, 1911
Decided April 10, 1911
220 U.S. 428

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Where a device possesses such amount of change from the prior art as to receive approval of the Patent Office, it is entitled to the presumption of invention which attaches to a patent.

An inventor is entitled to all that his patent fairly covers, even though its complete capacity is not recited in the specifications and was unknown to the inventor prior to the patent’s issuing.

The law regards a change as a novelty, and the acceptance and utility of the change as further evidence, even as a demonstration, of novelty.

The rubber carriage tire involved in this case and patented to Grant attained a degree of utility not reached by any prior patent, and, although only a step beyond the prior art, is entitled to be patented as an invention.

Utility of a device may be attested by litigation over it showing and measuring the existence of public demand for its use.

While extensive use of an article beyond that of its rivals may be induced by advertising, where the use becomes practically exclusive, a presumption of law will attribute that result to its essential excellence and its superiority over other forms in use.

Elements of a combination may all be old, for in making a combination, the inventor has the whole field of mechanics to draw from. Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. p. 318.

On the evidence, this Court finds that the improvement on rubber tires involved in this case possesses the power ascribed to it by the inventor and denied by those using it without authority, and holds that this power was not the result of chance, but was achieved by careful study of scientific and mechanical problems necessary to overcome defects in all other existing articles of that class.

In the courts below, defendants relied on invalidity of complainant’s patent, and did not press the defense of noninfringement, and also conceded that infringement existed in prior litigation, and this Court holds that infringement exists.

Quaere whether, under Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, the injunction can extend to sale of articles in other circuits in which complainant’s patent has been held invalid.

157 F. 677 and 162 F. 892, affirming 147 F. 739, affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of certain letters patent for improvement in rubber tires, are stated in the opinion.