Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.

Citations

• 220 U.S. 428
• 31 S. Ct. 444
• 55 L. Ed. 527
• 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1687

Syllabus

<p>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.</p> <p>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 issuing.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Utility of a device may be attested by litigation over it showing and measuring the existence of public demand for its use.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>In the courts below defendants relied on invalidity of complainant’s patent, and did not press the defense of non-infringement, and also conceded that infringement existed in prior litigation, and this court holds that infri