The sun., 1901-02-28
RERLINER,S P,LENT VOID.
The Hell Telephone Nor spoly in Danger BY .
Federal COur Decision.

BOsToS, Mass Feb. H-Judge Brown or
tho United States Circuit Court handed down
n decision to-day holdin as invalid the cele-
brated Berlner patent I or a microphone at
tachment. on which Il r monopoly OF tho
American Bell Teleph, ne Company rests
Tho Supreme Court Of the United States
eventually will detcrm no the question az
issue on an appeal from Judge Browns ad-
judcation.
The decision was in he cases Of the Bell
Company agains the N1tional Teleph ono
Manufacturing CompanF and the Century
Telephone Company. The actions we're tried
together They were b roo ght with n view
to having the defcndant,t e:njoined from max
ing. using os selling ,aphopes embracing
the mcrophone attachmus The court holds
that the patent is invalid ;'or want Of inven-
tion and pntcntabiity. ard also because IT
wns anticipated by Edison and Bell.
The decision said:
The decree in this caSe must be for tho
defendants | Ind the Berliner patent In
valid because. AZ the date of the application,
June 4. 1877. Berliner had not made the in
vcntion covered by tho patents issued TO
the American Bell Tele phone Company on
Nov. II. 1891. 1t is con lusive that Berlincr
had not invented and die, not intend TO apply
for n patent for a con nant contact speech
transmitter l find. as a matter OF fact.
that Beriner did not before June 4. 1877,
succeed In transmitting speech: but on tho
contrary was convinced by his experiments
tha, speech could not be transmitted by the
apparatus OF the patent ir. suit.
Il nnd also that he did not at that date
intend to describe or claim tho apparatus
as a speech transmlttu. In view OF the
original applcat tion the complainants case
cannot be established without proof OF sue
cessful experiments by Berliner. The In
vention set forth in tho patent lay In ex-
pertinent In inventions OF this class, tho
true date OF conception Is the date at which
the experiment succeeds.
Tho second ground Of the decision Is that
the invention described in tho patent Is radl-
cav different from the invention described
In the application The original application
by changes. purporung To be amendments.
has been completely transformed into an
application for a distinct invention. This
transformation is OF the most remarkable
character and was made after Edison's carbon
cons tant contact speech transm1er was
inve nted and described in printed publica-
ton Such an endment Is Illegal. even II
Berliner had made the invention before June
Z. 1871"
"Th. third ground OF the decision Is to the
effect that the invention was ipreviou
patented by Bert ner Rerliner IN 1850 took
out patent which covered the speech trans
mitter OF the patsn in the suit. applied to Its
appro pirate use in a system. /. e. with re-
ceiver The effect OF claim four OF the 1850
patent was to give a monopoly or this instru-
ment applied 10 u appropriate use without
additional invention IL making this applica-
ton.
by granting the patent OF 1880 the Com
missioner exhausted his power 10 issue a
second patent whereby the patentee could
control all use Of this instrument as q trans
mittaT. Having been protected for seven
tee u years In the use Of this trAnSnitter with
one receiver. Berlinsr was not entitled to
further protection for use with any and al
receivers
The fourth ground Is that Edison was
the prior inventor. Aus. 4, 1883. is the earliest
date Of BeIliner's amendment affecting this
controversy. Berliners amended applioa-
ton IL anticipated by Edison's application
OF July 20. 1871. The defendants owe moth
ing to Beriiner."