Patent and trademark litigation from the 1930's challenging Chrysler's innovative engine mount technology

Patent Case: Trott v. Cullen, 86 F.2d 141, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3682, 31 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 210 (10th Cir. Colo. 1936) (affirming 8 F. Supp. 754, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1472, 23 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 225 (D. Colo. 1934)), rehearing denied, 87 F.2d 200, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2459, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 131 (10th Cir. Colo. 1937), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 669, 81 L. Ed. 876, 57 S. Ct. 511, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 208 (1937)

Trademark Case: Chrysler Corp. v. Trott, 83 F.2d 302, 23 C.C.P.A. 1098, 1936 CCPA LEXIS 90, 1936 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 448, 29 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363 (C.C.P.A. 1936) (reversing Trott v. Chrysler Corp., 22 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 315 (Comm'r Pat. & Trademarks Aug. 4, 1934))

Useful background information regarding "floating power" (kindly provided by Jim Benjaminson, Membership Secretary, Plymouth Owners Club, Inc., Cavalier, North Dakota):

Carl Breer, Birth of Chrysler Corporation, pages 100-104 (published by the Society of Automotive Historians) (note the passage on 101: "While this work was in process, an inventor from the midwest came in with a car equipped with an engine mounted on springs."  The Trott patent cases originated in the federal district court in Colorado, presumably Trott's place of residence; query if that was considered by the writer as the "midwest".  The patent decisions also reference that Trott's approach used springs.  To my reading, Breer carefully tries to make it clear that his own work had progressed before the "inventor from the midwest" arrived, that the inventor's efforts were flawed, that the review of the inventor's work was conducted by a separate division than that which did the rubber research, etc. To me, this reflects sensitivity to the legal issues.

Floating Power, presentation by Newton Field Hadley, Chief Engineer, Plymouth Motor Corporation, to the Society of Automotive Engineers (1931)