CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. V. GOODYEAR CO., 232 U. S. 413 (1914)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 232 U. S. 413 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Goodyear Co., 232 U.S. 413 (1914)

Rubber Tire Wheel Company v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

No. 37

Argued May 7, 1913

Decided February 24, 1914

232 U.S. 413

Syllabus

In Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U. S. 428, the Grant tire patent was sustained as a patentable combination, not as a mere aggregation of elements, but as a new combination of parts co-acting so as to produce a new and useful result; nor did the patentability depend on the novelty of any of the elements entering into it.

Where the combination is protected by such a patent, one manufacturing it by assembling the various elements and effecting the combination is not entitled to immunity from prosecution for infringing because he purchases one element from a party who is immune under a provision in a decree permitting it to sell the patented article itself. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U. S. 285, distinguished.

In this case, held that the immunity given by a provision in a decree to a specified party manufacturing and selling an article as a patentable chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 232 U. S. 414

combination producing new result is not transferable, and such party, although immune himself, cannot enjoin the prosecution of suit against another as an infringer because the later purchases from him one of the element used in manufacturing the article.

183 F.9d 8 reversed.

The facts, which involve the construction of a decree in a patent case and the extent and effect of the immunity granted thereunder to manufacture the patented article and the several elements thereof, are stated in the opinion.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED