New-York tribune., 1921-03-06
Patent Suit on Valve
Cages Won by REQ Folk
Barber Claims Upset by Circuit
Court of Appeals in
Otis Case

A patent decision Of vital interest
to the automobile industry is that just
handed down by the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals in :hc case
of Barber agt. the Otis Motor Sales
Company Of Utica, n. y, REQ distribu-
tor.
This litigation, which has lasted
nearly SIN years, was over the priority
rights TO valve seated in a cage,
which latter was screwed into the CYL
lnder head and was removable by
swinging the push rod aside.
"A mistake that has cost the indus
try dearly and to which too many man
ufacturers are prone is tina. of set
tling such claims for a nominal sum
IN order to avoid inconvenieace and
litigation" SAYS Horace 7. Thomas,
vice-pres ident and chief engineer Of
the REQ Motor Car Company.
"for example. the most difficult OBJ
steele to surmount in this Barber
suit vas the fact that a prominent
automobile manufacturer against whom
Barber had brought suit prior TO hi.
attack on REQ settled for $4,000 and
thereby gave tacit recognition to the
validity of Barber's claims.
In legal terms the case may be
summed UP as follows for the bene-
fit Of those who are interested in the
technical phase Of this famous litiga-
ton:
"In 1915 William Barber, alleging an
infringement on his patent for valve
gear by the REQ mechanism, brought
suit against the Otis Motor Sales Com
rany, REQ distributor at Utica, n. Y,
and won the case under such cir
I cumstances that he claimed the de-
trict was also binding upon the home
: cOrDOration AT lansing Mich
THAT decree was affirmed by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals,
which, except in rare instances, is the
court Of last resort in patent cases.
'Not content with this double VIC
/ tory. Barber then started suit against
the REQ Motor Car Company, Inc, OF
New York, evidently thinking if the
and only a sales organization. III this
case he sought an injunction against
| the exhibition of REQ cars at the New
York Automobile Show in 1917, the
( suit being filed just prior to the open
+ ing of the show
AT about the same time similar
4 suit was commenced in the Federal
courts of Michigan against the REQ
Motor Car Company, Of Lansing, the
manufacturer.
in these steps Barber made his mis-
take. for the New York City suit was
decided against him, and the Michigan
suit was deferred, pending the out
come OF the litigation in the East. AL
though the claims made by Barber in
all these suits were the same, the de-
: fense in the New York case was along
an entirely different line from that in
the Utica case. In view of the apparent
conflict between two Federal courts in
New York State. the Court Of Appeals,
upon request Of the defendants, sent
the Utica case back for a new trial.
The new trial occurred in January,
1918, and some two years later. in Nav,
1920, the Federal court at Utica again
sustained the Barber patent.
"The defendant again appealed, and
in view Of the new evidence furnished
by the REQ Motor Car Company, none
OF which had been before any higher
court on the former appeal, the Circuit
Court Of Appeals has just decided not
only that the REQ mechanism does not
infringe the Barber patent. but that
the patent itself is Invalid.
"There being no appeal possible from
that decree, the litigation is probably
now at an end, for the only case still
in court is the Michigan suit against
the REQ Motor Car Company, of Ian
sing, which will doubtless be dis
missed -