The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-12-19
American BELL Telephone Company
Defeated In the Suit Brought at
Boston by the Government.
BERLINER PATENT VOID
R. 8. TAYLOR, OF FORT WAYNE, ONE
OF THE SUCCESSFUL ATTORNEYS.
Pullman Palace-Car Company Beaten
I'm a Case That Has Been I'm Lit
igation Nine Years.

tested patent suit of the United States VS..
the American Bell Telephone Company was
ended this morning when Judge Carpenter.
OF the United States Circuit Court, rem
dered decision against the telephone COM
pany. This suit was a bill in equity pray
ing for the repeal of letters patent issued
to Emile Berliner. assignor of the Amer
ican Bell Telephone Company, for COM
bined telephone and telegraph system. The
case has been in the court for number
Of years and is already familiar to the
public. The Berliner patents were issued
to the telephone company. but never put
in use by them, on account, they claimed,
of the expense of making changes in the
telephone system while other companies
were prevented from using the system.
The first ground of the bill brought by
the complainants in this suit was that the
patent is void. it being beyond the power
of the commissioner to issue it. On this
point the decision of Judge Carpenter de-
clares: cit appears that one of the func-
tions of the device shown in the patent of
1880, namely, the function Of transmitting
articuate speech, is identical with the
sole object or function of the device cov-
cred by the patent of 1891, and that the
device for effecting the transmission of
sound is identical in both patents. The
patent, therefore, seems to me to be void
and beyond the power of commissioner to
issue
THE second ground in the suit is that
the issue of the patent was unlawfully de-
layed through the fault of the respondent.
The respondent corporation was of ample
means to prosecute the application. The
result of any delay which might take place
in the issue of the Berlinger patent would
evidently be to continue so much longer the
practical monopoly of the art of electrical
transmission of articulate speech. Under
the circumstances, think it clear that the
duty of the respondent corporation was to
use the greatest degree of diligence in
prosecuting the application TO an early
issue.
'"The application for which an interfer-
ence was anticipated was that filed July
&C. 1890, by Daniel Drawbaugh, in which he
claims to be the original and first inventor
of the telephone. There was set on foot a
| general understanding. es. it is called.
the part of the examiner and sie respective
counsel for Drawbaugh and for the Bell
company that the decision for the applica-
| tion for the Berliner patent should await the
| decision OF their pending suits 1t would
never appear in the Patent Office that
Drawbaugh was entitled to a patent. The
plain duty of the respondent corporation
was, as it seems to me, to insist on its
| right TO a patent at once. That the un-
| warrantable delay thus caused was in
| tended by the respondent corporation l
| can have doubt. / think that these
| acts were SO gross as to forbid any inter-
| reference except that they dishonesty
| delayed the issue of the patent, taking ad-
| vantage for that purpose of the perhaps
| excusable, willingness of the officials of
the Patent Office to postpone the decision
| of sharply-debated question in which
large public interest was involved.
| "My conclusion, therefore, is that the
complainant has made out the case, and
| that there should be decree that the
| patent in question was void and shall be
| delivered up and cancelled"
| Lawyer Frederick p. Fish, counsel for the
Bell Telephone Company, speaking of the
| decision, said: 1.-The case will now go to
| the United States Court of Apneals and
| decision will possibly be rendered next
| spring, after the case has been argued
| anew as though the Circuit Court had not
made this decision. If the case is decided
| against us it will be taken to the United
| States Supreme Court
The value of the patent involved is said
to be $5,e00OO0. The government case
against the Bel telephone contained two
counts and the judge sustained the gov
ernment in both. The first count was in
| effect that the issuance of the patent to
| Berliner was unnecessarily delayed and
the second count was In substance that a
| former patent issued to Berliner covered
substantially the same claims as made in
| the patent issued in 1891.
| The case argued June Is, IA, 16 IS, 10
| and 20 before Judge Carpenter. The govern
| ments special counsel was Custen X
| Brown, of Boston, and Robert ~, Taylor
of Fort Wayne Ind The telephone COM
pany's counsel were Chauncey Smith, j. j.
Storrow, r. p. Fish and C.. H. Swan. The
| costs in the case enormous, the record
alone making two large printed volumes
and cost over $1,000 By the courts de-
cree the costs are to fall on the telephone
company.
On the Stock Exchange the effect of the
decision of Judge Carpenter was to send
off Bell Telephone stock with a rush, and
for few minutes there was great excite
ment around the bell pole. The stock had
opened unchanged at 200h. and when the
| news of the decision had reached the street
it slumped by degrees to 49, From this
point it recovered to 1884, and at L o'clock
was selling at 1872. During the past week
the stock has displayed frmer tendency
and has been as high as POI.
| -------