The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-07-29

| on suo Sooos no maue should be considered aS maze
under the contract Of l846. Then Goodyear says
AZ Ioho IA" That Notwithstanding such agree
Eent, said Day Afterwards proceeded to infringe
anew upon the rights Of your applicant, and your
| applicant was obliged to commence several suits
against him, amongst others, two in the Circuit
Court of the United States, for the district Of New
Jersey, one at law and the other in equity Such
suits were pending for a long time, were severely
contested and very expensive"
| Now, II we look at the bill in New Jersey we
shall see what patents 1t that Day was charged
with infringing. In that bill, Goodyear sets forth
the contest between them, Days infringement, and
then the contracts of 1886 but the infringement Of
which Goodyear complaints is thus set forth:"Soon
after said settlement and said license, said Day COM
menced using the improvements specified in said aid
manufacturing purposes other than those permitted
by his license, in violation of said patents, and made
large quantities of India rubber" For what! Ce-
There is not syllable on that subject. But he says
| that he made large quantities for scar springs,
| packing, hose, boots and shoes, sheet gum, paper
bands, suspender ends and other articles prepared
by the use Of sulphur, and also by the use OF sui
| pbur and high degree Of artificial heat Now
| be testimony in this case shows beyond all
woven elastic as we'll as cemented goods, and yet
| Goodyear complains against Day In the Circuit
| Court of New Jersey for the violation Of his
| patents under the contrac 8 of 1916, by manufac
| articles than he was warranted IN making under
those contracts, and the articles have just emu
merated are the only ones that he specifies. He
makes no complaint of his manufacturing woven
| or sewed elastic goods.
Is it not, then perfectly clear that so far the
acts OF Goodyear were concerned, in none OF those
acts is there any indication that he meant, when he
used the general term "shrred or corrugated
| goods in the contracts of lS46, to limit them to
| the articles made under the patent of March 8,
ls44I On the contrary, is there not everything to
convince the Court that he meant to include all
kinds of Stirred or corrugated goods? In fact
does he not so SAYS not that the very language
of his application for the extension of his patent
| that he had sold that monopoly" to Day?
of Dupont Hyatt, it perfectly apparent that the
term ''shirred' or "shirred goods was one that
was well known, and that therefore the word was
no invention Of Goodyear when he took out his
| patent.
But is there anything in the patent itself, of
March o. 1874 to make the of this term 'shirred
or corrugated" by Goodyear, pass only the right
to manufacture goods under that patent? As
| word shirred, and surely Corrugated" was word
| that he could have found in every dictionary in the
English language "shrred, y the testimony proves,
was a term known and applied to an innumerabe
variety of goods. Does Goodyear pretend, in tho
patent of March 0, 1874, that he invented it? Not
at all Now let us construe the patent altogether.
1t is true, he says at the commencement Of his spe
cifcation, that | have invented new and useful
manufacture, which ~ denominate corrugated or
shirred india rubber goods" But look at what he
really patents. Does he patent new manufac
udt uocS ue call IL Ill Ills dppllCduOu 10 tne
Patent Office for an extension, when he speaks Of
| having sold it to Suydam? new Improvement"
What does he say below in his claim? Does it read
naS Having for the of Putting the
described the. nature of my manufacture, which
| call shirred or corrugated goods" If that
had been the language. used, there would
claimed by the defendants But the language
is this:-"Having, &C., fully described the ma
tmre Of my new manufacture of corrugated goods"
Then there was manufacture before; that is ad
mitted That is apparent the face Of this PATENT
he continues:-"And having also set forth the man.
ner in which manufacture the same, what claim
as new therein GmplyiDg that there was something
tent Is the forming Of such goods by the stretch
ing of strips or threads Of india rubber to such
extent as may be desired, and the covering of said
strips opposite sides with the lamine of cloth,
leather, or any other suitable material which lami-
are to be united to each other and to the threads
or strips of cloth by of india rubber cement,
hs aa%f a hseg s sft as herein set forth ~
Now, what is his patent? 1t is a new process of
making manufacture that was known before. In
stead of making corrugated goods by sewing. or
| weaving, which was datory process, he makes
them more easily and quickly by cementing. That
what he patents-a new manufacture OF CORFU
| gated goods. 1t was new and useful improve
ment in known manufacture, and therefore pa
| tentable by the law of 1886.
| hold it, therefore, clear, from the language Of
the patent, from the testimony in the cause, and
from the language of Goodyear himself in his ap-
plication to the Commissioner of Patents, that he
did not intend to limit his grant in the contracts of
1916 to the goods made under the patent Of March
| 8, 1874.
Let us now if there is anything in the collate-
raj testimony to show that there could have been
| any other intention on the part of Goodyear when
| he used these words.
| In Goodyear's assignment, on the 2sth of Sep
TENDER, 1858, to the Union India Rubber Company
there is one portion which struck my mind forcibly
in connection with this question. He goes on to
| -UNorv in consideration n thp Orpmcpa and
of the of $4,000 paid to the party of the first
part by the parties of the second part the receipt
! whereof is hereby acknowledged, and of the tariffs
herein specified, the party of the first part has
granted, bargained sold and conveyed unto the
parties of the second part **** the full, absolute
and exclusive license, right and privilege to make,
vulcanized india rubber, **** SO far as the same
may or can be used in the manufacture of all braid
ed, woven, cemented or sewed fabrics, or such as
are or can be covered or protected on one or both
Sides with substances other than rubber, and in all
smooth elastic shrred goods" cite this for the
purpose of asking this question-why, if there
were not other shirred goods made than those
under the patent ofMarch 8, did he put these words
in here? Because it is admitted that Day held the
right to shirred goods at this time. Does it not
show that there were other shirred goods than
those made under the patent of March 9, ls4H I
cite it for that purpose and that alone
Let us now look at the three licenses referred to
in the contract of 1916. The first is the license to
Hutchinson Runyon on the 18th Of August, ls45.
| III conveys 10 Alem u Tree HCenSc 10 manuIaClure,
use and yend shirred or corrugated goods of every
description, in SO far as the said Charles Goodyear
may have any rights or privileges" Shirred goods
of every description. Now, in the contract Of the
18th Of October, 1916, between Goodyear & Day,
the language is, to make use and vend call shirred
or corrugated goods" except so far as Goodyear
has parted with the right by three licenses; there
fore, it is important to ascertain what those three
licenses contain. Goodyear conveys to Hutchinson
& Runyon the right to use his inventions in the
manu- acture. Of shirred or corrugated goods Of
every description, in so far as he has right to
sell. Now he had the right to sell his Inventions,
under his patents of March 9, ls44. But there are
some things that he had not right to do. He had
no monopoly in woven goods made of common
gum but he could sell the right to make cemented
goods Of common rubber and ofvulcanized rubber,
and he could sell the right to make woven goods of
vulcanzed rubber; and, therefore, he puts that