HAKE V. BROWN.

283

HAKE 11. BROWN

et ale

December 15, 1800.)

(CircuU Court, S. D. New

1.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-BEVEL-EDGED CARDS-NOVELTY.

The first claim of letters patent No. 219,464, granted to Philip Hake, September 9, 1879, for a device for making and ornamenting bevel-edged' cards, is void, as it appears that the method of auch claim was known and practiced prior to plaintilt's discovery thereof. . In a suit for infringement of n patent not previously adjudicated upon, after a decree for complainant, defendant's motion to reopen the case and take further proofs will be granted on condition that defendant pay complainant's counsel fee for the previous argument, where the testimony sought appears to be newly discovered, material, and not merely cumulative, and defendants have not been guilty of great laches.

I. SAME-Bu)'rs FOR

In Equity. Suit by Philip Hake against George F. Brown and another for the infringement of a patent. A motion for rehearing was made in this case, and denied. Another motion was thereaftet made to reopen the CRISe, amend answer, and take further proofs. Arthur v. Briesen, for orator. Walter D. Edmonds, for defendants.
WHEELER, J. This cause has now been heard on motion of defendants for leave to amend the answer and to take further proofs. The testimony sought appears to be newly discovered, material, and not merely cumulative. The defendants do not appear to have used all due diligence, but their laches do not 8eem so great that they should be deprived of all relief in this direction. A motion for a rehearing has been before made and overruled, but this motion has not been belore made. 'rhis is the first adjudication upon this patent, and it should, if it can be consistently, made upon a full showing. Upon the whole, the motion is granted, without prejudice to the injunction now in force, upon the express condition that the defendants pay to the clerk of this court for the orator's counsel a reasonable counsel fee for the argument on final hearing already had, to be fixed by the clerk within 20 days, and in case the defendants finally prevail upon the evidence sought, the orator shall recover of the defendants the taxable costs of the cause hitherto as they would be taxed in ordinary cases where costs are recovered. ON REHEARING UPON ADDITIONAL PROOFS.

The new evidence in this case shows satisfactorily and beyond fair doubt that the method of making and ornamenting bevel-edged cards of the first claim of plaintiffs patent ,vas known to and practised by Thomas J. Mooney and others prior to the plaintiff's discovery thereof, as set up in the answer of the defl'ndants. The defendants are therefore entitled to a decree upon the terms imposed in granting the motion for a rehearing. Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of-complaint, with costs to the plaintiff to the granting of the motion for rehearing, and with costS to the defendant subsequent thereto.

284

J'll:DERAL. REPORTER, vol. 44. BRUSH ELECTRIC CO.
'l1.

FT. WAYNE ELECTRIC CO.

(Oircuit Oourt, D. Indiana. December 10,1890.)
PATENTSJ'OR IWVENTIONS-ELECTRIO LAMPS-INFRINGEMENT.

The lamp manufactured under letters patent No. 219,208, granted to Charles F. Brush, September 2, 1879, for "av.electric lamp," isa duplex lamp, organized to burn two or more pairs of carbons successively, and its distinguishing features are the arrangement of the feeding mechanism, so that the carbons of the two pairs are dissimu1taneously separated to form the are, and after the arc is formed between two carbons one is fed towards the other as fast as it is consumed, and, when this pair is fully consumed. the electric current is automatically transferred to the other pair. This feeding mechanism is operated entirely by electricity. Brush showed in his specifications that the feeding could be done by a clutch mechanism, suggested that it might be done by clock-work, but expressly said that he did not limit himself to any specific mechanism for obtaining the desired result. Held, that the patent is infringed by a lamp having the same characteristics, and differing only m that the feeding mechanism is operated by clock-work, which, however, is brought into action and controlled by electricity; and it is immaterial that in the latter the carbons may be separated by hand. where it appears that if this 1& not done the machine will do it as in the BrUSh lamp.

In Equity. II. A. Seymour and Offield Fowle, for complainant. R. S. Taylor, for defendant. Before GRESHAM and BLODGETT, JJ. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for an injunction and accounting, by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 219,208, granted to Charles F. Brush, on the 2d day of September, 1879, for "an electric lamp." The suit was commenced on the 1st day of July last, and COmplainant very soon thereafter moved for an injunction pendente lite, which motion was heard in the early part of October last. This patent has been four times before the courts of this circuit, and once before the circuit court for the northern district of Ohio, presided over by Judges BROWN, of the eastern district of Michigan, and RICKS, of the northern district of Ohio, in all which cases the patent was carefully considered in the light of the prior art, and its novelty and utility fully sustained. The only question seriously contested upon this hearing for injunction was that of the alleged infringement of the defendant's device upon the device covered by the complainant's patent. The defendants manufacture electric lamps, made substantially in accordance with a patent granted to James J. Wood on the 24th of Jt.ne last. The Wood lamp, like that of Brush, is a duplex lamp, orga.nized to burn two or more pairs of carbons successively, but the feeding device of the \Vood lamp is partially actuated by clock-work, instead of its being operated entirely by action of the electric current, as in the Brush. In the Wood lamp, however, the clock-work mechanism is brought into action and controlled by the electric current. The distinguishing features of the Brush lamp is the arrangement of the feeding mechanism, so that the carbons of the two pairs shall be dissimultaneously separated for the purpose of forming the arc, and that, after the arc is fornled, one of the carbons of the