Home/Sixth Circuit/General Electric Co. v. International Specialty Co.

General Electric Co. v. International Specialty Co.

126 F. 755, 61 C.C.A. 329, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4368
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedNovember 3, 1903
DocketNo. 1,186
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 126 F. 755 (General Electric Co. v. International Specialty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Electric Co. v. International Specialty Co., 126 F. 755, 61 C.C.A. 329, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4368 (6th Cir. 1903).

Opinion

RICHARDS, Circuit Judge.

The question involved in this case is the construction and application of the eighth claim of the Anderson patent, No. 412,155, for improvements in electric railway trolleys, the validity of which was sustained by this court in the Star Brass Works v. General Electric Co., 111 Fed. 398, 49 C. C. A. 409. This claim reads as follows:

“(8) The combination, with a trolley frame and trolley wheel, of metallic conducting brushes, G2, between the hubs of the trolley wheel and the said frame, to operate substantially as described.”

[756]*756In a suit for infringement brought by the appellant (complainant below) against the appellee, the court below denied the injunction and dismissed the bill, holding, first, as matter of fact, that in the defendant’s structure the metallic conducting brushes do not bear upon the hubs of the trolley wheel, but are “placed between the trolley frame and the end of the journal or bearing of the trolley wheel”; and, second, as matter of law, that the invention described in the eighth claim is limited to a combination in which the trolley wheel is provided with a nonmetallic insulated bearing, by reading into this claim a part of the specification of the patent.'

i. It is difficult to understand how the court below reached the conclusion that the conducting brushes of the defendant bear upon the ends of the axle or journal and not upon the hubs. We have inspected the defendant’s structure as submitted in the exhibit accompanying the record, and it clearly appears that the brushes bear upon the hub, and not upon the ends of the journal or axle. This is also apparent from an examination of the following illustrations, one showing a perspective view of the trolley harp and conducting brushes, which we held to be an infringement in the Star Brass Works Case, and the other showing a similar view of those of the defendant in the present case.

[757]*757 RJanJibAoaVEkoXImnqEQVhLGoSjJBBIW5IyILkshTApKtN1HXUVHsr92mkBr7ooAqBNW

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

Related

National Tube Co. v. Mark
216 F. 507 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co.
150 F. 597 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1906)
O. H. Jewell Filter Co. v. Jackson
140 F. 340 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Star Brass Works v. General Electric Co.
131 F. 78 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 F. 755, 61 C.C.A. 329, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-electric-co-v-international-specialty-co-ca6-1903.