Case Name: Henzel v. California Electrical Works
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-07-18
Citations: 51 F. 754
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henzel v. California Electrical Works.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 51
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Henzel v. California Electrical Works.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
July 18, 1892.)
!, Patents fob Inventions—Construction of Claim—Electric-Lighting Gas-Burn BBS.
In letters patent No. 230,590, issued July 27, 1886, to George F. Pinkham, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, the claim is for, “in an electric-lighting gas-burner, a magnet for turning the gas cock by one electric impulse, combined with a fixed electrode, a', and a movable electrode, e', normally in contact, and mechanism connecting the armature with the movable electrode, to break the contact between a' and c’ the instant after the gas is turned on, and create a spark for ignition, substantially as described. ” In the drawings, a' designated a platinum point on the fixed arm, and tí a small bent arm normally in contact with the fixed electrode. Meld, that the word “electrode” generally, and especially as used in the patent, means the platinum or other metal points constituting the poles of the circuit. 48 Fed. Rep. 375, affirmed.
2. Same—Infringement.
The mechanism being otherwise sitbstantially the same, the fact that defendant’s apparatus has a horizontal armature, which moves ill a vertical direction, while the patented apparatus has a vortical armature, which moves in a horizontal direction, does not prevent infringement-. 48 Fed. Rep. 375, affirmed.
8. Same—Past Infringements—Equity Jurisdiction;
When a patent has been assigned, together with all claims for past infringements, the fact that a person sued by the assignee has not sold any of the in fringing articles since the assignment, and testifies that ho intends to sell no more, is not sufficient to exclude equitable jurisdiction, when it appears that he still has them in stock, and has published a catalogue offering them for sale, and that in his answer he asserts a right to sell them. 48 Fed. Rep. 375, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.
In Equity. Suit by the California Electrical Works against George L. Henzel for infringement, of letters patent No. 230,590, issued July 27, 1886, to George F. Pinkham, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, for an electric gas-lighting apparatus. Decree for injunction and accounting. See 48 Fed. Rep. 375, where a full statement of the facts will be found in the opinion delivered by Hawley, J. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
M. A. Wheaton, I. M. Kalloch, and F. J. Kierce, for appellant.
John H. Miller and J. P. Langhorne, for appellee.
Before McKenna and Gilbert, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
McKenna, Circuit Judge.
The facts in this case justified an injunction and the equitable jurisdiction of the court. The contending devices are for lighting and extinguishing gas by "one impulse," through the agency of electricity. We think the defoudant's device is an infringing imitation of claimant's device. The substantial resemblances in structure and friction were clearly delineated by the learned judge who tried the ease in the circuit court, and we concur in his reasoning and conclusions. Judgment is affirmed.