White v. Heath

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Citation: 10 F. 291
• Parties: WHITE and others v. HEATH.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

10 F. 291

WHITE and others v. HEATH.

United States Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

January 1, 1882

Wilmarth H. Thurston, for complainants.

Warren R. Pirce, for defendant.

COLT D.J.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction. The complainant having acquired title by assignment to a certain patent issued to Charles S. Westland for an improvement in lamps charge the defendant with an infringement. This patent, No 206,061, was issued July 16, 1878, and the claim is as follows:

'The combination, with a lamp for burning explosive or inflammable oils or fluids, of a closed receptacle containing carbonic acid gas under pressure, so located with relation to the burner that in case of an explosion the compressed gas will be liberated, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.'

The object of this invention was to avoid the danger from fire, in the event of an explosion of a lamp in which kerosene or other inflammable fluid might be used, by means of a closed receptacle, or chamber of glass or other fragile material, charged with carbonic acid gas fitting about or into the oil reservoir. Immediately upon the issuing of the patent, Westland sought capital to establish the business of manufacturing the lamp. Among those whom he met was the defendant, Heath, and on September 16, 1878, he sold to him one-third interest in the patent. On July 3, 1879, the complainants White and Fairbrother bought the remaining two-thirds, and on January 28, 1881, they also purchased the other one-third of Heath and another person to whom he had transferred a part. We thus find that the defendant was interested in this patent up to January 28, 1881. On March 1, 1881, the defendant took out letters patent, No. 238,234, for an improvement in safety lamps, and he claims that the lamps complained of are made under this patent. The position taken by the plaintiffs is-- First, that the lamps in question are not made under the defendant's patent, because the main features of that patent, which consisted of certain details in the construction of safety lamps, are omitted; second, that even if made under that patent they would be an infringement of the Westland patent.

The inquiry whether the lamps made by the defendant conform to his patent we deem, under the circumstances, immaterial. The only defence offered by Heath is his patent, and if that does not protect him he is guilty, under the evidence, of the charge of infringement. An examination of the defendant's patent shows that it embraces the main elements of the Westland patent. It consists of a combination, with a lamp for burning explosive oils, of a closed receptacle containing carbonic acid gas, so located that in case of an explosion the compressed gas will be liberated. What is claimed in the specification is an improvement 'in certain details of construction whereby the passage of the gas to the inside of the reservoir and to the flame is insured.'

These details relate mainly to the...