Seim v. Hurd
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The certificate in this case is as follows: “There arises in this case a question of law upon which this Court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court for its proper decision.
Read the full summary
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The certificate in this case is as follows: “There arises in this case a question of law upon which this Court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court for its proper decision. “It is therefore ordered that the statement and questions here following bp certified to the Supreme Court as provided by the Sixth Section of the Act of March 3rd, 1891. “United States Patent No. 554,675, was issued February 18,1896, to Arthur W. Grant for Rubber Tired Wheel. The patentee immediately assigned the entire interest in said patent…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hughes
Hurd, a licensee for a limited territory under the Grant patent for rubber tires, joining with him the legal owner of the patent and the holder of an exclusive license subject to the rights of Hurd and another, brought suit against Seim and Reissig, for infringement. It is stated that the defendants purchased the infringing tires from the Diamond Rubber Company of New York and, also, that it is the contention of the defendants that these tires were bought by the Diamond Rubber Company from the Kokomo Company. The patent had been sustained in a suit against the Diamond Rubber Company (162 Fed.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sylvan Beach, Inc. v. KochCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
- Stoehrer & Pratt Dodgem Corp. v. Glen Echo Park Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1926
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Barrett Herrick & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959