New-York tribune., 1922-09-10
Decision Given
In Crystal
Litigation
Enjoins Holder of CRYSTAL
Detector Patent From
Warning Buyers Against
Alleg ID Infringenents
important Trade Ruling
Court Declares Advertising
Was Unfair and Injured
the Plaintiffs Business

the Plaintiffs Business
An important decision which ma
teriaily affects the crystal detector
patent situation was handed down last
week by Justice O'Malley in the Su-
preme Court in the suit recently in
stituted by the Freed -Eisemann Radio
corporation against the Wireless Spe-
clalty Apparatus Company. The lat
ter was enjoined from continuing
series of advertisements which warned
buyers against purchasing radio ap-
paratus alleged to bs infringement of
patents held by them.
The decision will undoubtedly have
widespread bearing upon the gem
erai merchandising of radio apparatus,
ton involves the question of damages
caused by the announcements pro-
hihited by the ruling.
The suit was brought by the Freed
Eisemann Corporation through W. Fl.
Taylor jr., of the firm of Pennie. Davis,
Marvin & Edmonds, as result of
campaign of advertising conducted for
some time by the Wireless Speciality
Apparatus Company and circulariza-
"'oh ili thc IIdoS Charging sn&HuldCLuT-
ers of crystal detector radiophone re-
ceiving sets and parts with infringe
ment Of one or more of twenty-one
patents alleged to pe owned by this
company and to be infringed by the
common type of crystal detector set.
Advertising Complained OF
The complaint filed in the suit al
legged that the warning announcements
advertised and circularized in the
trade were purposely framed in such
language as to create the impression
that twenty-one patents alleged to be
owned by the defendant were infringed
by every manufacturer Of crystal de-
tector sets and their component parts,
which acts the complaint characterizes
as malicious and as having been done
in bad faith. solely with the intent to
destroy the business OF manufacturers
OF crystal detector apparatus other
than the Wireless Speciality Apparatus
Company.
The complaint further points out
that the advice to distributors, job
bers and dealers contained in the warn
ing announcements to demand from
manufacturers Of crystal detector ap-
paratus guarantees Of protection hold
ing them harmless against recovery on
any of the twenty-one patents is un-
lawful, anu ASKS tnHL Sucu " dCtstS pC
restrained by order of the court.
The application for an injunction
was brought on by an order to show
cause, and arguments were presented
before Mr.. Justice OMalley on the re-
turn day of the order. The decision
Just handed down on the application
for injunctive relief upholds the con-
tentions Of the Freed-Eisemann Radio
Corporation in every respect, and OFF
ders an injunction against the Wireless
Speciality Company restraining further
unfair trade practices such as these.
"Ads" Declared Unfair.
The decision holds that the repre-
sentation by the Wireless Specially
announcements to the effect that one
or several of it's twenty-one patents
are being infringed by the naanufac-
turers of crystal apparatus is unfair
and unwarranted, because "a buyer of
radio apparatus cannot be reqired to
examine the twenty-one patents and
then obtain expert opinion as to
whether the particular device bought
by him infringes one or more of the
twenty-one.'
The decision goes on TO state that
although the right Of patent owner
to give notice of his patent rights un-
der Section 1900 of the United States
Revised Statutes is unuestioned, yet
such RIGHT must be confined within rea-
sonable bounds and not to include
statements unnecessary for the protec-
tion of the patent owner and which are
calculated to do injury and damage to
the business of its competitors. The
decision on this point states that Ger
tainly it would seem that the advice TO
purchasers contained in the advertise
ment to the effect that they should seek
guarantees from sellers is not re-
quired to protect the defendant. If
not, it should be enjoined because of
the obvious injury which it will cause,
and in fact apparently has already
caused, to the plaintiffs business. More
over, the defendant apparently does
not claim that all of its twenty-one
patents are being infringed, but at the
most one or several of them. Such an
omnibus notice extending to it's twen-
ty-one patents, which gives no infor-
nation as to the precise claims in
volved, seems to me unfair"
The decision is sweeping in the
measure of relief afforded the plaintiff
against the Wireless Speciality Appa-
ratus Company in its advertising cam
paign. The court orders that further
advertising and circularization Of the
trade in the form heretofore employed
by the Wireless Speciality Apparatus
Company should be enjoined.