Muncie Gear Works Corporation was founded in Muncie, Indiana about 1910. They took over a failing, two year old business named "Muncie High Wheel Auto Parts Company". One of many, auto parts stores that sprung up in the early days of the automobile.
The first president of Muncie Gear Works was H.L. Warner and he was later succeeded by T.W. Warner. Both men would become well know for their association with Warner Gear Division of Borg Warner and Warner Machine Products, a subsidiary of Essex International.
The company rapidly grew manufacturing clutches and transmissions and the growing amount of time required to manage Muncie Gear caused the Warner's to leave and focus on their other business. Dr. William A Spurgeon became the new president. He was replaced by his son Kenneth A Spurgeon in the early 1920's, who remained president until his death in 1967.
In the 1920's Muncie sold their transmissions to companies like International Trucks and the Ford, but the stock market crash and the depression had them adapting and they manufactured transmissions for potato diggers, automatic coal stokers, air conditioners, deep freezers etc
They got into the outboard motor business in 1930 making many brands such as Muncie, Neptune, Sea Gull, Skipper, Mighty Mite and also Sea King brand for Montgomery Wards, as well as the Motorgo and Waterwitch brands for Sears.
In 1942, Johnson outboards, who licensed their patent to OMC (Evinrude, etc) took Muncie to the Supreme Court over patent infringement over the cavitation prevention plate
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a2d0add7b0493469e88f and the ruling set a standard for ALL patent law, about the "late claiming" doctrine announced in Muncie Gear.
This interpretation invalidates patent claims presented by amendment more than the statutory period after public sale or use only. It's now known as the Muncie Gear Doctrine.
Summed up, as best I can figure out the lawyer speak, which is not easy to understand, the Muncie Gear Doctrine pertains to "claims directed to an invention disclosed
but not claimed in the [original patent] application may not be added to
the amendment more than the statutory period (of patent upgrades and updates) after public use."
In Muncie Gear, the Court explicitly found no disclosure of the
later claimed invention (anti cavitation plate) in the original (patent) application.
Moreover, the
rule of law announced by the Court as the rationale for its decision
focused solely on public use or sale two years prior to the "first
disclosure" of the invention to the Patent Office.
Further, the
Court's holding invalidated the claims (of patent infringement) because of public use or sale
two years before the invention in issue "was first presented to the
Patent Office."
The Court had, at most, created a "late disclosure" doctrine
wherein claims submitted via amendment two years after public
sale or use would be invalid only when unsupported by the original (patent application) disclosure.
The Supreme Court believed that the original application in Muncie Gear "wholly failed to disclose the invention [then] asserted" by the patentee.
Fifty-two years before the Muncie Gear decision, the Supreme
Court announced its definition of "new matter" in Topliff v. Topliff.
"New matter" is a term of art in patent law referring to that
which is added to a patent application and directed to an invention beyond the original disclosure. The Topliff Court explained
that a patentee has claimed new matter when he amends his application to "change the invention" or introduce "what might be the
subject matter of another application for patent.'
In Muncie Gear, the Court recognized that, "The [original] specifications and drawings indicated an anti-cavitation plate which
the specifications said 'prevents cavitation,' but it was in no way
asserted that the cavitation plate was new, or that it was being
employed in any novel cooperative relation to the other elements."' It was not until two years after public use or sale of a
device embodied in the claims in issue that the patentee in Muncie
Gear claimed the anti-cavitation plate as his invention .' The patentee had therefore changed his invention, as the claims submitted
via amendment were then directed to the anti-cavitation plate
rather than the originally emphasized anti-torque plate. Thus,
the patentee in Muncie Gear went beyond the original disclosure
to include new matter in each of the claims in issue.
When World War II broke out they manufactured 37mm gun carriages, aircraft parts, rocket parts and a outboard drive for barges that would be the for-runner of the inboard/outboard of today.
Muncie became a major supplier of rocket parts to the Army, for the Viet Nam conflict.