Brush Electric Co. v. Julien Electric Co.
Decision Date | 18 March 1890 |
Citation | 41 F. 679 |
Parties | BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. v. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
W. H Kenyon and W. C. Witter, for complainant.
Thomas W. Osborn and H. M. Ruggles, for defendants.
This is an equity action for the infringement of four letters patent granted to Charles F. Brush for improvements in secondary batteries, and now owned by the complainant. These patents are dated and numbered as follows: Nos. 337,298 and 337,299 were applied for June 13, 1881, and were granted March 2 1886. No. 260,654, was applied for June 13, 1881, and was granted July 4, 1882. No. 266,090, was applied for June 9, 1881, and was granted October 17, 1882. The first of these, No. 337,298, which was is distinguished as 'Case I,' relates to secondary batteries, and consists in a plate or support provided with a mechanically applied coating of absorptive substance adapted to be transformed into an active coating. Also, in a plate or support provided with a mechanically applied coating of granulated, spongy or porous metallic lead. It further consists in the method of constructing plates for secondary batteries, consisting in mechanically coating lead, or other suitable plates, with an absorptive substance adapted to be transformed into an active coating. The drawings attached to the specification represent the supports in various forms. They show plain, studded, honey-combed, corrugated and ribbed plates; plates with angular corrugations, arranged singly or in pairs, and plates with slots or perforations, extending through the plates. The active material consists of granular, porous or spongy lead, which is held in position upon the plain plate of lead by a sheet of heavy paper, card-board, cloth or felt, which may be secured to the plate by rivets, ties or binding strips of wood or metal. The paper or felt may be dispensed with and the spongy lead held in position on both sides of the support by subjecting it to pressure, hydraulic or otherwise. In the corrugated, grooved, ribbed, perforated, studded or cellular plates the spongy lead may be held in the grooves, cells or cavities by paper or felt, or it may be rammed or pressed into them. The specification states that 'when a pair of plates are associated together to form a secondary battery, and immersed in dilute sulphuric acid and charged by the passage of an electric current in the usual manner, one of the plates absorbs a large quantity of hydrogen, while the other plate has its spongy or granular portion peroxidized, and thus forms the oxygen element of the battery.'
The claims alleged to be infringed are the first, fifth, eighth, tenth, and eleventh. They are as follows:
'(1) A suitable plate or support, provided with mechanically applied absorptive substance, and adapted for use as a secondary battery element or electrode, after being rendered active by an electric current, substantially as set forth.' '(5) An improvement in the construction of a secondary battery element or electrode, said improvement consisting in a plate or suitable support provided with grooves, receptacles, or perforations primarily coated, combined or filled with mechanically applied absorptive substance, substantially as set forth.' '(8' In the process of making plates or elements for secondary batteries, primarily and mechanically applying or combining with a suitable plate or support an absorptive substance, adapted to be transformed into active material, substantially as set forth.'
The second patent, No. 337,299, which is distinguished by the inventor as 'Case J,' is for the same invention, substantially, as Case I. The drawings of the two are identical and the language of the specifications is very similar; where it differs, equivalent expressions are employed. Perhaps the principal differences are the substitution of the words 'active material' for the expression 'absorptive substance adapted to be transformed into an active coating,' of Case I, and the words 'lead oxide' for the 'granular or porous lead,' of Case I.
The specification in question contains this additional statement:
And also the following:
'I would have it understood that I do not restrict myself to any particular form of active or absorptive material, or to any particular method of applying it to or combining it with the plate or support, as my invention consists, broadly, in a secondary battery plate or element having active or absorptive material primarily and mechanically applied thereto or combined therewith, as contradistinguished from a plate or element having the active material produced by the disintegrating action of electricity, as in the well-known Plante' process.'
The claims alleged to be infringed are the first, second, third, sixth, seventh, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth. They are as follows:
'
These two patents, Nos. 337,298 and 337,299, are fundamental patents designed to cover the broad inventions of Mr. Brush. No. 260,654 is a division of Case J, and is distinguished by the inventor as 'Case J, Division A.' The invention 'consists in the method of making the plates of a secondary battery consisting in forming receptacles for oxide of lead in its surface, then applying oxide of lead to the plates and within such receptacles and afterwards subjecting the oxide of lead to pressure. ' The drawings of this patent are identical with those of the preceding patents, except that Fig. 1, showing the use of card-board or felt, is omitted. The specification contains the statement above quoted from Case J, relative to peroxide being the best oxide of lead to use, and says, further, that the oxide of lead may be retained in place by being rammed or pressed into its receptacles, cells or grooves. The single claim is as follows:
'The method of forming the plates of a secondary battery, consisting in forming receptacles for oxide of lead in its surface, then applying oxide of lead to the plate and within such receptacles, and afterwards subjecting the oxide of lead to pressure.'
In No 266,090, distinguished as 'Case C,' the invention consists in a secondary battery element, constructed of cast lead, or other suitable substance, having cells, receptacles, ribs, or projections on its surface, whereby an extended surface of metal is exposed to action. The drawings are the same as those attached to the preceding patents, with some new ones added, showing the plates arranged ready for charging. The specification says of Fig. 4 that it shows a modified form of ribbed plate resembling an ordinary window-blind with the slats open. It may also be regarded as a thick plate, perforated with a series of parallel slots. And of Fig. 5, that it shows the honey-comb form of plate, resembling in construction a simple or double comb of bees-wax. It may have its cells extending entirely through the plate. The plates may be made by pressing plain sheets of lead, or other suitable metal, into dies or forms by hydraulic or others means; also by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic Mach. Corp.
...court did not so regard them; and no such construction of Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. is now open to us. As early as the second Julien Case (C. C.) 41 F. 679, 685, Judge Coxe had pointed out that, though one patent may seem to have a broad claim and another a specific claim based on the same d......
-
Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co.
... ... The proof that he did ... make such discoveries is very unsatisfactory ... [57 F. 608] ... This ... being so, it precludes the idea that Faure had made many ... kindred inventions along the same lines, which he was ... desirous of protecting. Like Mr. Brush for instance. 47 F ... 48, 51, 54. Clearly it was his intention to take out a patent ... for the same invention in the two countries. This is not ... disputed. One of the experts for the complainant says: ... 'These patents (Faure's] intended to cover the same ... invention, differ widely.' ... ...
-
General Electric Co. v. Alexander
... ... inventions being the same. The burden is upon the defendants, ... and the doubt should be resolved in favor of the patents ... ' Brush Electric Co. v. Accumulator Co. (C.C.) ... 47 F. 48 ... See, ... also, Brush Electric Co. v. Julien Electric (C.C.) ... 41 F. 679; ... ...
-
Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Belknap
... ... New York.December 19, 1901 ... The ... complainant, who is the owner of letters patent, No. 337,299, ... granted to Charles F. Brush, March 2, 1886, for improvements ... in secondary batteries, moves for a preliminary injunction ... restraining the defendants from infringing ... the subject of fierce and persistent attack, but has always ... been sustained. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien ... Electric Co. (C.C.) 38 F. 117, 128-131; Brush ... Electric Co. v. Same (C.C.) 41 F. 679; Same v ... Electrical Accumulator Co. (C.C.) 47 F ... ...