Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co.

66 F. 309, 13 C.C.A. 487, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 14, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 66 F. 309 (Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co., 66 F. 309, 13 C.C.A. 487, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328 (2d Cir. 1895).

Opinion

LAOOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The suit was brought on five patents, viz.: No. 265,311, to Edison; No. 251,596, to Johnson; and Nos. 257,277, 293,552, and 298,658, to Bergman. All these patents relate to sockets for incandescent electric lamps. The patent to Edison, No. 265,311, was held valid by the circuit court, and was [310]*310also found to be infringed, but, because of the expiration of a Russian patent to Edison for the same invention, no injunction was granted. No appeal from that part of the decree was taken. The patent to Johnson, No. 251,596, was held by the circuit court to be invalid as to the claim in controversy. The complainant appealed, but upon the argument in this court the decree of the circuit court-as to that patent was sustained on the opinion below. The third patent to Bergman, No. 298,658, was withdrawn at the argument from the consideration of the circuit court, and from so much of the- decree as dismissed the bill as to that patent no appeal was taken. The second patent to Bergman, 293,552, was held valid by the circuit court, which decreed an injunction and accounting thereon. The defendant appealed, but upon the argument in this court the decree of the circuit court as to that patent was sustained on the opinion below. The first patent to Bergman, 257,277, was held valid by the circuit court as to the second claim, the only one of which infringement' is charged. The defendant has appealed, and the determination of that appeal is the only question remaining to be decided by this court.

This first Bergman patent is one for an improvement in the details of an incandescent lamp socket, devised to overcome a difficulty which was found to exist in the earlier combinations of lamp and sockets. The lamp, which comes separate from the socket, is a glass bulb, surrounding the illuminating filament. Through the insulating material which closes the mouth of this bulb, and constitutes its base, run the leading'-in wires which carry the current to thé filament. Each of these leading-in wires is connected with a piece of metal on the outside of the lamp base, these pieces of metal being separated from each other by insulating material. When the base of the bulb is inserted in the socket, these pieces of metal come into contact, respectively, with the two wires which 'bring the current from the. source of supply. When both are thus in contact, the current flows through the filament. When one of them is cut off from contact, by a key or other circuit-breaking device, the current ceases to flow, and the light is extinguished. Prior to Bergman’s contrivance, the two pieces of metal which connected at the lamp base with the leading-in wires consisted of a screw-threaded band around the base near its lower end, and a broad flaring ring nearer to the bulb. The band engaged with screw-threaded metal in the socket, thus making electrical connection with one of the line wires. The flaring ring engaged with a like ring on the top of the socket, thus making connection with the other line wire. The insulating material of the base of the lamp, which formed a nonconducting body between the band and the flaring ring; was composed of plaster of paris. As the lamp base was screwed.down into the socket so as to bring the two rings into proper contact, there was a constant tendency to pull the base apart between the screw-threaded band and the ring; and, as plaster of paris is a- fragile material, it frequently happened that the insulating surface- was cracked- of disintegrated before the filament of the- lamp- was worn out. - Bergman reversed the position of these [311]*311metal contacts in both lamp and socket. Tbe screw-threaded band and its engaging thread on the socket were retained, but the rings nearer to the bulb were dispensed with. Instead of the flaring ring on the lamps, he placed, in the center of the base bottom, a metal disk connecting with one of the leading-in wares. Instead of the ring on the top of the socket, he placed a metal projection in the hollow space in the bottom of the socket, connected with one of the line wires, and arranged so as to impinge upon the metal disk in the bottom of the lamp base when the latter was screwed into the socket. In consequence there was no longer any tendency to pull the insulating material apart. On the contrary, as the screw thread drew the lamp base deeper into the socket, pressure on the bottom plate increased, and the insulating material was pressed closer together. The patentee in his specification sets out that the object he had in view was to “produce a socket for incandescing electric lani|>s which will have the electric terminals or contacts so constructed and arranged that terminals can be used on the base of the lamps, which, from their position, will subject the base to compression when it is screwed into the socket, instead of to tension, thus permitting the use of a molded base without danger of cracking between the terminals.” The second claim, which is the .only one in issue, is as follows:

“(2) In an electric socket, the combination, with the body of the insulating material, of a plate in the bottom of Uie socket, and a horizontal screw ring located between the bottom plate and the mouth of the socket, said plate and ring engaging opposite parts of an entering base or plug, and serving to compress the base or plug between the terminals carried hy it, sub-staniially as set forth.”

It is to be noted that in this patent, which is for the socket alone, only half of Bergman’s device is claimed. To its successful operation it was quite as essential that the old lamp base should be remodeled as it was that the form of socket be changed. And the patentee testifies that when he .perfected his device, and showed it to Mr. Edison, in whose employ he then was, the latter at once gave instructions to the manager of tlie lamp factory to stop making the old-style lamp bases, and to make them so as to compress the plaster when screwing the la,mp in, instead of pulling it apart. The improvement is, no doubt, a small one, but it seems to be useful. The defect it remedied was a troublesome one, and, so far as the evidence shows, Bergman’s change of the relative position of the contacts seems to have overcome it. The various Edison companies at once began to use sockets with the contacts described and claimed in this patent, modifying the Edison lamps accordingly, and that construction became the standard construction for Edison’s lamps and sockets, and has remained so down to the present day. For many years no one seems to have infringed, and it is only recently, when the business of electric lighting has grown to such dimensions that there is a. profitable field for the manufacture of separate parts of the apparatus, employed, that defendants have undertaken the manufacture of sockets suitable for operation with lamps having their contacts arranged as in the Edison, and [312]*312which are infringements of the Bergman patent. Several patents and publications hare been introduced by defendant to show the prior state of the art, and support the contention that the Bergman device contains no element of patentable novelty. The Powell English patent of 1874 is the best of these references. None of the others are more suggestive than this. It is a device for an electric arc lamp, and a standard or suspending or mural support for the same. It shows the lamp base or stock screwed into a supporting socket. The screw ring provided one contact, and a spring plate in the lower part of the hollow in the socket provided the other contact, with the result that pressure or compression would be applied to a more or less extent to the base..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. 309, 13 C.C.A. 487, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edison-electric-light-co-v-electric-engineering-supply-co-ca2-1895.