The morning call., 1892-10-04
ELECTRICIANS IN COURT.
Judgment in Favor Of the
Brush Company.
Perpetual Injunction Against the Electric
Improvement Company for Infringe
ment Of Patent

An important Judgment was rendered
Yesterday by Judge RawleY Of Nevada in
tbe-esse Of the Brush Electric Company vs..
the Electric Improvement Company.
The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for
a perpetual injunction against the defend
ants from infringing their patent OF the
Brush electric lamp.
The judgment is a most elaborate one,
and is in favor of the plaintiffs.
The learned Judge enters fully into the
history Of electric lighting from its diseoT-
cry in 1910 by Sir Humphry Davy down to
the inventions Of Mr. Brush.
Early in 1878 Mr.. Brush invented lamp
whereby only one light could be operated
upon a circuit, but shortly afterward in
vented the series lamp. whereby two or
more lamps could be operated at once and
the same time upon the same circuit
In 1879 MI. Brush discovered how TO
produce a long continued light automatically
without renewing the carbons, Tor when ne
received the patent 10 controversy.
The learned Judge says ut Is claimed
that this invention OF Mr. Brush, as covered
by his patent, is simply that Oh an attach-
ment or modification Of the simple carbon
lamp previously invented by hliD' FMS
claim cannot be sustained.
''In determining the construction that
ought to be given TO the patent 10 eontro-
versy, it is the duty OK the court to aseeI-
tain whether Brush vas pioneer or mere
Improyer in the field Of electrical lnven-
tious, and constantly to bear IN mind that
his lamp has met the public want and has
long been In general and successful use.
'The fact is, as shown by the prior state
of the art and by the testimony taken In
this case, that Brush was pioneer in this
branch Of electrical construction. Being q
pioneer inventor he is entitled to broad
and liberal Interpretation Of his patent.
"The contention, so earnestly pressed by
defendants counsel, that. the hrst toul
claims Of the patent are VOID because tneJ
are for functions and results and not fol
aDysspecifc mechanism, Is directly, clearly
and, in my opinion, correctly answered 10
tie previous decisions sustaining this
patent.
Under the construction which has beer
given to the patent, II necessarily joiioms
In my opinion, that the Wood lamp clearly
embodies the invention Of Brush, and Is al
infringement Of his lamp.
True, there is a difference in the con.
struction Of the lamps Clockwork IN the
Wood lamp Is substituted for the clutci
mechanism Of the Brush lamp, as was sug-
Regted In the patent nigh. be done.
"Put an inspection OF the working OF eac
lamp shows that both lamps operate SUB
stantially the same way.
1.-THE operation of each lamp is due pre-
eiselV 10 the same causes and forces. The.
both automatically bring the idle carbon in
90 contact with its mate by the same mod
of operation, by the same action oil the cur
rent and accomplish identically the sam
results"
After referring TO the three distinct func
tions performed by the Brush and WOO
lamps the Judgment continues:
1.-The two pinions Of the Wood lamp seeI
10 be as much two separate and dlstint
feeding mechanisins as are the two Tin
clamps of the Brush lamp.
''The functions and results accomplished
by the ring clamps of the one lamp ana %
feeding pipions of the other make thel
substantially Identical.
II am, therefore, OF opinion that all OF u
claims Of the patent have been infringe'
and this view is certainly sustained
the authorities.
"The contention of the defendant
counsel that the lamps are essel
TALLY different in that a. the Brus
lamp employs two feeding mechal
isms, while the Wood lamp has b
one that OF crates both car bon pairs;
that the Brush lamp operates both carbC
pairs and automatically calls the second pa
Of carbons into function after the FIR
pair is consumed electrically, while Il
Wood lamp does this work mechanically
90 that the Brush lamp imparts dissimu
famous initial separation to its two pairs
carbons, while the Wood lamp separat
the carbons of one pair only, the earbons
inc other pair having been manual
separated and Iatched up by the lam
trimmer before the lamp is put into oper
tion. has been fully, and as believe, CT
rectly answered adversely to the defendaI
In the previous decisions.
complainant Is entitled TO decree a
TO perpetual Injunction.