Seim v. Hurd
Headline: Court dismisses certified questions and allows infringement suit to proceed, ruling that assembling patented rubber tire parts yourself counts as infringement and buying parts does not shield makers.
Holding: Because the defendants themselves assembled the patented combination in the plaintiff’s territory, the Court dismissed the certified questions and held that making the patented tire cannot be excused by merely purchasing separate parts.
- Assembling a patented combination yourself can trigger infringement liability.
- Buying rubber or parts does not shield a maker from infringement claims.
- Courts may dismiss certified questions that do not match the case facts.
Summary
Background
Hurd, who held a territorial license under a rubber-tire patent, joined with the patent owner and another licensee to sue two men, Seim and Reissig, for making infringing tires in Hurd’s territory. The defendants had bought rubber stock and other pieces from outside companies, and earlier litigation had left open questions about some makers named in other suits. The certification to the Court described that the defendants received parts in New York and then assembled the rubber, metal channel, and retaining wires onto wheel rims in Albany, within Hurd’s licensed area.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the defendants could avoid infringement liability simply by buying parts from others. The Court explained that the patented claims covered a narrow combination of old elements that produced a new result only when precisely assembled together. Because the defendants themselves made that combination in the licensed territory, there was actual infringement when they completed the tire. Buying separate components did not excuse them. The Court found the certified questions did not match the case facts and therefore declined to answer them, dismissing the certificate.
Real world impact
The decision makes clear that a person who assembles a patented combination commits infringement even if some parts were purchased elsewhere. It leaves open questions about makers who are separately immune, because the Court declined to rule on those issues here. The order is procedural — the certificate was dismissed rather than resolved on all underlying legal rights — so related disputes could be decided in later proceedings.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?