U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1916

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided March 17, 1916 · Coxe, Rogers, Ward

232 F. 475; 146 C.C.A. 469; 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1841

Counsel

Charles Neave, of New York City, for appellant., Charles W. Stapleton, of New York City (George W. Wickersham,, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Faulkner v. Gibbs (9th Cir. 1952)
Merrell Soule Co. v. Powdered Milk Co. of America (2d Cir. 1925)
Union Electric Welding Co. v. Curry (6th Cir. 1922)
Auto Vacuum Freezer Co. v. William A. Sexton Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1918)
B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. (7th Cir. 1918)
Ruth v. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1935)
Van Meter v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 1930)
American Stainless Steel Co. v. Ludlum Steel Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1926)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

COXE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Few patents have been subjected to such violent and persistent attacks as the Grant patent in suit. For 18 years it has been discussed by the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeal and many District Courts and the efficacy and value of the invention have been, of late years at least, almost universally recognized. Naturally the owners of the patent have been put to great expense and annoyance by this bitter and persistent attack upon their property. In such circumstances the courts should not be zealous to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of their victory. If doubts arise, they should be resolved against those who have deliberately infringed the patent, even after the Supreme Court had told them it was valid. Without going further into the merits, it suffices to say that their conduct has not been such as to commend them to the court. A large part of the difficulty in reaching the exact facts has been due to the defendant’s conduct. We think the finding of the master that there was a minimum license fee of 5 cents a pound established during the infringement period is amply sustained by the proof. It certainly cannot be argued that such a sum was exorbitant and it seems to us entirely reasonable. If the defendant did not like the price it should not have infringed.

[2] The law does not require that all of the license fees should be for exactly the same amount at all times. Sulphite Co. v. De Grasse, 193 Fed. 653, 113 C. C. A. 521; Packet Co. v. Sickles, 86 U. S. (19 Wall.) 611, 22 L. Ed. 203. The principal questions in controversy have been so thoroughly covered by the master and the District Judge that we deem it unnecessary to add further to the report and the opinion. An established minimum license fee of 5 cents per pound has been proved and we see no reason why this license fee should not be regarded as a reasonable royalty also. In any view a correct result has been reached.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.