Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1901-12-24

TiIlinghast Patent
Decision.
History Of Long Ex-
tended Litigation.
Manufacturers Will Still Retain
Licenses.

The latest decision in reference to
Tillnshast patents is comprehensive
ly reviewed as follows, by Boston
correspondent of tne Motor Review:
The United States Circuit Court of
Appeals sitting i'm this city, has just
handed down its decision I'm the case
Of Fred Howard Porter ct al. against
the Single Tube Automobile & Bicycle
Tire Go. The Court of Appeals, In IL
long opinion, confirms the opinion of
the lower Circuit Court for the Dis
trict of Massachusetts, handed down
Nov. IA, 1899, by Judge Colt, who up
held the validity of of the Tillinghast
patent granted to Pardon w. Tilling-
hast on May %, 1893. Judge Colt
held that the invention was not antici-
pated by the prior state of the art, and
ordered that a decree be entered for an
injunction and accounting against the
defendants, as asked in the prayer OF
the plaintiff, Theodore A. Dodge.
The opinion Of the Court of Appeals,
Judges Putnam, Aldrich and Brown
concurring, was rendered Dec. II, and,
while sustaining the validity of claim
of the patent, 1t modifies the decree
of the lower court so far as to adjudge
claim invalid because it is too broad,
and remands the case to the lower
court with directions to proceed ac-
cordingly.
The claims Of the patent which has
been so long in controversy has been
twice sustained, read as follows:
IA pneumatic tire, consisting of
rubber air tube, and outer cover
ing, substantially as specified, with the
ends of the air tube and other compo-
ment parts securely united by vulcan
ization substantially as described,
thereby constituting an integral CON-
plete tire.
"a pneumatic tire, composed of
II rubber tube, an intermediate layer of
fabric, and and an outer covering of
rubber, substantially as described. hav-
ing all its rubber joints and component
parts simultaneously vulcanized to-
gether, forming an integral annular
tire"
Pardon w. Tillinghast, of Provi-
dence, II. l., first applied for a patent
on his sngle-tube tire invention on
November 20, 1891. This application
was several times rejected and amend.
ed; then was withdrawn and a new
application filed, which was finally
granted on May 23, 1893 In the same
year Tillinghast transferred his patent
| to Col. A. A. Pope, of the Columbia
Manufacturing Co., and the Hartford
Rubber works.
Subsequently Theodore A. Dodge ac-
lulred controlling interest in it, and
he was the plaintiff In the case against
Fred ii. Porter and others of the
Reading Rubber Tire Co., which was
decided in his favor In November two
|
years ago, The rubber company was
then controlled by the United States
Rubber Co. ana had been manufnctur-
Ing bicycle tires Of the single.tube
style. a number Of other infringe
ment suits had also been started
against other companies. At that time
there were nine companies that recog-
nized the Tillinghast patent, and were
manufacturing under licenses from
Dodge. They were the Is. +. Good.
rich Co, Hartford Rubber works, Re.
we're Rubber Co., Mechanical Fabric
Co., Boston Woven Hose Il Rubber
Co.. Newton Rubber works, l.. O.
Chase n CO., Western Wheel works
and the Hodgman Rubber Co. No H.
censes had then been taken out fol
automobile or vehicle tire manufac
ture.
Following the rendering of the de
cision of the Circuit court upholdinp
the validity of the patent, many new
licenses were issued by Mr.. Dodge
under an ironclad agreement regulat
ing selling prices and royalties. III.
case was appealed by the United
states Rubber Co., and the ownershi,
of the patent was transferred to a new
company organized under the nam,
OF the Single Tube Automobile a. Bi
cycle Tire Co., for the purpose of bet
ter defending the validity of the pat
ent.
The confirmation OF the former do
cislon Is expected to have an i'm
portant and far-reaching effect. nj
though the manufacture OF single-tube