Morning journal and courier., 1894-02-09
POINTS IN AN 1mponrANT CASE

| 1 In Which Large Monied Interests
 Were at stake-A Notable Contest
 Features of q Striking Suit-A Sum-
 mary of Judge Townsend's Decision
 An Interesting After Episode of
 the Litigation.
 The Railroad Gazette publishes ir full the decision of Judge William K. Town ssnd of this city in the Westinghouse Ar Brake company's case. The decision ocou- pies many pages of the journal, equal to about twelve columns of this paper, the case being of SO important and complex character and there being various different patents in suits and the slucidation ot the various points necessarily taking much space.
 The Gazette says editorally: ''Last week | we gave the main points in the decision of | Judge Townsend jn the United States Cir | cult court in the suits brought by George Westinghouse, jr., and the Westinghouse Air Brake company against the New York Air Brake company. We now have the opinion, which appears in full elsewhere in this issue. It Is very voluminous and we judge that 1t will be service to the reader if we give it's substance in few words, though one much interested in the matter should read the complete document for 1t is learned and we'll reasoned"
 There were three bills In equity for 1n- frineement of four patents to Nesting house.
 Tie main defense was snon-infringement and lack of patentable novelty on tho thso- " that the invention claimed had been described in other patents to Westinghouse not in suit. These earlier patents are chiefly No. 906 .070 and No. 162, ,485. The
 frat mentioned covered the improved au-
 in the Burlington trials of 1887. It Is with in the knowledge of all our readers that in the opinion of the master car builders committee, which conducted and reported on these trials, the Westinghouse appsra- tus, ss presented in 1887, left the field open as wide as in 1886, and that electricity must be called in to operate the brakes on long train. Then Westinghouse by changes, improvements and the introduc- tion of new clements made the brake oper- ate on a fifty car train in actual service, and this latter apparatus was patented in No. 876, ,837, the main patent in suit.
 The defendants admitted that Weeting- house was an original and meritorious in ventor, the first to sucSessfully use an air brake, tho first to graduate the pressure in | the brake cylinder, the first inventor of the Westinghouse automatic and quick action automatic brake; that this last was the first practical system for long trains, and that 1t went immediately into success ful and extensive use. But they clsimed
 that patents a80, ,07O and 162, ,465 imper- | and are not in suit They further claim that the patents in suit are for mere minor Improvements upon, and modi6cstions of, 1 said inventions, which did not require any exercise of creative thought
 l The Gazette then goes on to give syn opsis of the finding of Judge Townsend,
 covering all the ramifcations. spscifca-
 tions and multitudinous points necessarily involved in an exhaustive dissection of 8
 case of the extensive scope involved and
 which is necessarily, to large extent,
 technical in character. At every point the
 claims of the defendants are dissected in @ | maaterly manner by ths court, and the case
 must necessarily have involved long and
 close application from the mechanical
 tschnicslities involved and the extent and importance of the interests involved on
 both sides. Throughout the long docu-
 ment there appears the strictest inquiry
 In concluding his decision on one point
 at issue, Judge Townsend says:
 Ihave not overlooked the distinction between
 the atmospheric pressure on both sides of the ! emergency valve or compliments and the aux ! Hilary reservoir pressu on one side coubter.
 balanced by train pressure on the other de of ! defendants device. This difference do.s not af. ! feet the operatio of the emergency piston. The
 valve Is for this reason a better valve docs not
 seem to me to help the defendants. If the de
 which to sRas e pat
 @ While re1ainng the % other elements I % of the e com com
 plsinants, it seems to me that this fact suggests one merely eesisnsd to got sis of the claims of
 "As result of these considerations I have
 defendants apparatus the quick action trlple ! valve,' infringes tue f'st three claims of the patent in suiI, aud that the second form, the shs shft first and third claims of the patent if These claims are:
 Essentially the first of these claims is tht | combination of a chamber or casing havine | direct connection to a brake cylinder and to train pipe respectively, valve controlling com munication between such connections, and a pis nected with, the triple valve piston, and actu ated by pressure from an auxiliary reservoir ir
 such direction as to impart opening movement tt ."The second claim includes a check, or non
 sira o. tn , casing, having passages leading to brake cylin der and brake pipe respectively, supplement [ valve piston and adapted to impart opsnini 3 movement to said supplemental valve, and pas
 l sage establishing communication between th , ! supplemental piston and an auxiliary reservoir ''Suit was also brought on the sixtl claim of patent 376, ,S37, which is for thu , combination of 8 triple valve casing ant 8 supplementary valve chamber, the latte . | of which being the chamber of the emer gency valve, is made in two parts, one out side and the other inside of the triple valv casing. The defense in this particular wa lack of invention and the judge considered
 the defense fully made out"
 But still another important contest wa embodied In the case and called for de cision. It was in reference to the inven . for effectiDg the rapid admission of fluit Q under pressure into receptical, oo-inci 2 eentslly with reduction of pressure in faid supply, and the means by which thi
 l object was to be obtained could be usei l with or without triple valve az paratus The infringement of the claims was ad mitted, but the defense was that the claim were void, because they must be construed to cover the transfer of the automatic re
 lief valve of patent 162, ,485, to the auto l matio system which was mere double use z and to cover the substitution for the auto | matic relief valve of patent 880, ,07O of tn valve of 162. .465. mere substitution, ant
 that therefore there is no invention de ecribed in the patent in suit; moreove that certain alleged amendments are en lsrgements and not amendments.
 Ths judge holds that this divisional pa
 tent fairly represents an invention distinc 2 from those which preceded it, and give 2 the ressons for such conclusion in definit : : and explicit language. Varions othe . charges equally specific and of an intricat . nature had to be met and decided upon.
 The Gazette eays: s'It would consum
 l too much space to follow through the req D soning of the judge in this important suit ? but he reaches the conclusion that whil ! in some respects the device of the defend
 ants may be an improvement upon that O . the complainants, it does not show that tn, defendants have not appropriated the in ventien of the complainants, and 1t ii we'll settled that they have no right il making an improvement on another's de ! vice to appropriate his invention. The ele :. ! ments which are common to the two de vices are vital clements and essential to tn,
 operation of the patent and to the achieve s msnt of the result sought; therefore tn, |. judge is of the opinion that the defend ants device infrinees the claims in suit
 and demands an Injunction and an ae ! counting.
 i've have attempted to give the essen s tials of this extremely important decision