Woodward Co. v. Hurd
Headline: Seller of tire parts cannot claim immunity; Court allows patent owner to sue sellers who supply parts intended to be assembled into patented tires, even when one part was lawfully made elsewhere.
Holding: The Court held that a business that sells parts intending customers to assemble them into a patented tire is not immune from infringement claims even if one part was lawfully made by another company.
- Sellers who supply parts for customers to assemble patented products can be sued for infringement.
- A lawful supplier of one component does not automatically shield other sellers of complementary parts.
- Some distributors that only sell independently made items may remain outside this ruling.
Summary
Background
Hurd, joined by the patent’s legal owner and licensee, sued a business that sold parts used to build a patented tire inside Hurd’s exclusive territory. The defendant bought the rubber portion from the Diamond Rubber Company, and obtained metal channels and retaining wires from other suppliers, then sold those parts to customers who would assemble them onto wheel rims. The Kokomo Rubber Company had made some of the rubber stock and had won in a prior case in the District of Indiana, where the complaint had been dismissed for want of equity, so the defendant argued that because one element came from Kokomo it should be immune from suit.
Reasoning
The Court framed the main question as whether a seller of parts is protected when one component was lawfully made and sold by another company. The Court rejected that claim. It explained that the defendant was not merely a passive dealer in an independently sold item. By buying and selling the different pieces needed for the patented combination, and doing so so that customers would unite them into the patented tire, the defendant went beyond ordinary commerce and could be held liable. The Court therefore answered the certified question in the negative and left other questions unanswered because they were not raised by the record.
Real world impact
Companies that deliberately sell multiple parts intending customers to assemble a patented product can face infringement claims, even if one part was lawfully made elsewhere. Sellers who merely distribute a single component made and sold independently are not the subject of this ruling. The Court also noted that Kokomo’s own right to make and sell its rubber and the free movement of lawful products are not involved in this case. The decision narrows any claim of blanket immunity for sellers tied to a supplier’s earlier favorable ruling.
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?