Brush Electric Co. v. Fort Wayne Electric Light Co.
Decision Date | 24 December 1889 |
Citation | 40 F. 826 |
Parties | BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. v. FORT WAYNE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana |
M. D. & L. L. Leggett and H. A. Seymour, for complainant.
R. S Taylor, for defendants.
This suit is brought for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 219,208, granted to Charles F. Brush, September 2, 1879 for improvement in double carbon electric lamps of the arc type. Brush assigned the patent to complainant before suit was brought.
When two ordinary, pointed, carbon sticks are in contact in an electric circuit, the circuit is closed, and the current freely passes through the carbons, without the production of any appreciable amount of heat or light at the point of contact. If, however, while the electric current is passing through them, the carbons are slightly separated, the current will continue to flow, and in crossing or leaping the small space intense heat and light will be produced. This is known as the electric arc lamp, and the one generally used for illuminating large buildings and halls, and for lighting streets. The incandescent electric light is produced by causing a current of electricity to pass through a filament in a glass bulb, from which the air has been exhausted. In its passage the current encounters great resistance, and, as a consequence, the filament is heated to a degree producing a bright, white light throughout its entire length. This light is well adapted to use in-doors. As early as 1810, Sir Humphrey Davy, with a battery of 2,000 cells, succeeded in producing an arc light between two horizontal charcoal pencils, insulated, except a small portion at their ends; but, owing to the rapid combustion of the soft points, the great cost of the battery, and the short duration of the light, it was of no practical or commercial value. But little progress was made in the improvement of this light or lamp until 1844, when Foucalt substituted pencils made of hard gas carbon for the charcoal pencils of Davy, and thereby, for the first time, produced a persistent, but short-lived, electric arc light. By a clock-work mechanism, Foucalt fed the pencils toward each other, but imperfectly regulated their burning. The voltaic battery did not generate electricity on a sufficiently large scale. The light was expensive, and it did not go into general use. Later, the dynamo electric machine was developed, in which a powerful current of electricity was produced by revolving coils of wire in a field of magnetic force furnished by powerful, permanent magnets, after which the arc electric light was successfully used in lighting houses in England, and later (1867) in France. But up to this time no means had been devised for producing an adequate current of electricity for illumination at practicable cost; and it was not until the invention of the Gramme dynamo electric machine, in 1872, that electricity was produced in a manner, and of sufficient strength, to render electric lighting practical and useful. This machine was afterwards improved in details of construction. In this state of the art, Brush entered the field of invention, and on May 7, 1878, obtained patent No. 203,412 for his arc lamp, which was superior to any lamp that had preceded it. This lamp, however, was not capable of burning continuously more than 8 or 10 hours, and, when used for all-night lighting, it was necessary to extinguish the light and renew the carbons; and, in order to obviate this defect, Brush invented the lamp in suit. His invention, and the means by which it is carried out, are thus described in the specification:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brush Elec. Co. v. Western Elec. Co.
...are void because they are for a result or a function, and not for definite means, we do not consider tenable. As was said in the Ft. Wayne Case, 40 F. 826, 833: specification describes mechanism whereby a result may be accomplished, and the claims are not for mere functions. * * * They are ......
-
Brush Elec. Co. v. Electric Imp. Co.
... ... [52 F. 966] ... California Electric Light Company has an equitable title as ... the exclusive licensee for the states of California, Nevada, ... v. Western ... Electric Light & Power Co., 43 F. 533, and Brush ... Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 44 F. 284. While ... declining to discuss the questions involved in this case, the ... ...
-
Brush Electric Co. v. New American Electrical Arc Light Co.
... ... adjudicated, and to be fully stated in the opinion of Judge ... GRESHAM in Brush Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Light ... Co., 40 F. 826; of Judge BROWN, in Same v. Western ... Electric Light, etc., Co., 43 F. 533; and of Judge ... BLODGETT upon a ... ...
-
Brush Electric Co. v. Western Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... a simple reference to the opinion of Judge GRESHAM in the ... Brush Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric-Light Co., ... 40 F. 826, in which the same construction was placed upon the ... Brush patent; but, in view of the importance of the ... ...