The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-09
TIE GREAT INDIA RUBBER CASE.
->>~~>>>~>~~~>~>>~~>
FHg DECISION OF JUSTICE GGIER
IN TIM
CASE OF GOODYEAR VS.. DAY.

nARCh TERM OF THE UNITED STATES ClktUlI
COURT AT TRENTON BEFORE JUDGES GREER AND
DIcKERsoS, BY JANIS 7. BRADY AND DANIEL
WEBSTER, FOR THE PLAINTIFF ANB Rgfus
cHoArE AND FRANCIS B. CUTTING, FOR THE
DEFENDANT. -
The bill in this case sets forth that, since 1888,
Charles Goodyear has been, and now IS, the owner
Of certain new and useful improvements IN the
preparation of india rubber for manufacturing pur
noses nv which the properties Of this substance
xrestly changed and improved. 1t is rendered ia
fensbe 10 heat and cold, within certain degrees of
taken away and it is made proof against the efeets
oil fat and grease, or expressed oils, while the
strength, elasticity, and other good qualities Of tie
original substance are retained and improved.
That these improvements were secured to CON-
vlainant by letters patent-the first, dated Path Of
February. 1899, on a discovery Of Nathaniel Hay
ward, of Woburn, Mass, assigned by hiI to Good
year. This patent was for the application of sui
phur in the curing of india rubber After this, the
complainant Goodyear, in lSiO, commenced, and
continued for several years, his experiments on
India rubber, in order to discover some method of
rendering this substance nsensble to cold and heat
and freeing it from the cammy properties which in
jnred the use and sale Of goods heretofore, manu-
featured from it. For want of these qualities, all
the Of this substance have heretofore
failed, and many been ruined.
That, struggling under many discouragements and
difficulties, from his poverty and want Of means, he
continued his experiments for two or three years;
and after repeated failures, and much loss of time
and materials in the latter part Of the year lS43 he
discovered that by applying very high degree Of
arthciaI heat Qrom 250 dogs. to 300 dogs. of Fab
renheit) to the substance, when compounded with
certain proportions of sulphur and carbonate of
lead other metallic bases, the qualities so much
desired would be impaired to it,
That for this discovery or improvement in the art
Of manufacturing india rubber, he obtained a pa
tent on the 10Th Of June, 1874.
This patent, owing to defects in its specification,
WAS surrendered, and another issued on the 18th Of
December lS49, with an amended and more perfect
specification.
That about the time the patent of 1874 was OBJ
tanned, the complainant sold to David L. Suydam,
Of New York, the right to use said discovery and
Improvement in the manufacture of shirred or cor
rugated goods, for which license said Suydam
agreed to pay the sum of $4,000.
That soon after Suydam had commenced manu-
featuring shirred goods, the respondent Day COM
nenced the same business in violation and dis.
regard of the rights granted by said patent to
Goodyear
inferior article and denying the validity Of said
patents, so annoyed, vexed, and discouraged said
Suydam, that he refused to 60 with his contract,
or 70 pay the $l5 000 and transferred his license
to complainant. That suits at law and in equity
were instituted against Day and his agents, both in
New York and at Boston. To these suits Day set
mp, Q defence, that said patents were void, be-
cause Hayward and Goodyear were not the nven-
tors or discoveries Of the Improvements set forth
therein. That, after much preparation made on
both sides for the trial Of these issues, at November
term, 1916, Day applied to Goodyear to settle and
discontinue the suits, offering to confess Judgment
one Of them, to pay $4,000 damages, and buy from
Goodyear license for the exclusive manufacture of
SHRED goods under said patents, TO pay three cents
per yard, and stamp the goods with Goody ears
name, and not to make any other article to infringe
the patents That these terms were accepted, ar
tices Of agreement executed, and all the suits dis
continued and released by complainant, except one
on which Judgment was entered in favor of the
plaiI tiff, which satisfied by the payment Of the
said $4,000 damages by Day. Since that time, Day.
IN utter disregard of his contract and of the rights
secured to complainant by said patents, has com
IN aftt m thov
goods. and sell them in large quantities, to the
great injury of The complainant.
The bill prays that the defendant may render an
account Of the articles made ana sold by the re-
spondent, in disregard Of the patents Of Complain
ant, and not included III the license from him to de-
fendant; and for an Injunction against Day, re-
straining him from the further Infringement and
violation Of said patents.
The defendant, Day, in mis- answer denies:--
L. That Goodyear is the owner Of any new and
useful Improvements, as claimed by the bill
OF Hayward's, but denies that it vested in Good
year any exclusive right to the use of sulphur in
the manufacture Of india rubber goods for that he in
vention of Hayward was in public use, with his
patent.
g. He denies that Goodyear was the first inventor
OF discoverer of the beneficial effects Of high de-
gree of heat applied TO india rubber.
4. The answer then sets forth inh1ec rerbd the
patent to Goodyear Of 18th June, 1914, and pro-
ceeds to enumerate various companies and indivi-
duals who are alleged to have manufactured india
rubber with sulphur, white lead and high degree
ofheat.
5 Without denying directly the infringement
by defendant Of compliments patents, the answer
alleged that he has not used III the manufacture of
INDIA rubber goods combination OF gum, sulphur,
and white lead in the proportions claimed specially
In said letters patent.
g. The answer proceeds to deny that Goodyear is
the inventor Of shirred or corrugated goods, and
proceeds to name others who made and used them.
As the bill has no such charge or allegation,
this part of the answer need not be further noticed
Z That complainant, in 1919. surrendered his
patent Of 1874, AID took out two new patents
one for an improvement in telling india rubber
with cotton fibre that both the re-issusd patents,
are void for various reasons set forth at length.
3. The answer repeats frequently that the de-
PENDANT used all the combinations Of the patent Of
1874 more than two years before that time; and
enumeTates some twelve pasents, the use of which
he has purchased, and alleges that the re-ssued
patent Of complainant interferes with some Of them.
9. The answer admits the suits brought against
defendant for infringement Of Goodyears patents
the settlement and diseontinuance Of said suits; and
parties at length, taking some collateral issues
20 some immateral circumstances connected there
with, which need not be mentioned
10. That Goodyear wilfully and fraudulently
deceived the defendant, to Induce him to enter into
the said agreement, giving other reasen for the
assertion, however, than that William Judson was
part owner Of Goodyear patents at the time.
IL That William Judson, James A. Dorr, ard
John Haskins, are parties in interest, and should
be made parties CON plainsnt.
IL. That Goodyear did not protect defendant in
the exclusive rights guaranteed to him by the
agreements.
10. That when this agreement Wa made, the de-
PENDANT /" meant 10 reserve his right TO msnufac.
iure in any way be pleased the moment Goodyear
failed to protect him IN the exclusive right CT manu-
featuring SHRED goods; and because this was DONE
had repudia.ed his said Contracts" aud plcads
such reputation in bar Of this bill.
H. That complainant is barred from recovering
the tariff oovenan.ed in the articles to be paid
shirred goods, up 70 lat Of January, 1919, By
dict and judgment at law in q suit tried In thi,
court.
Is. That Goodyesr's raten, Of 1874 was invalid,
by reason Of combining two separate inventions
one for rubber compound, the other for felting
cloth, (the latter Of 40 ralue) that the claim in
the patent Of lSi9 is fraudulent. because it claims
the application Of heat to the curing Of rubber !"