Home/N.D. Illinois/Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company

Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company

146 F. Supp. 625, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 203, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2484, 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,428
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedJune 22, 1956
DocketCiv. A. 54 C 128
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 146 F. Supp. 625 (Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company, 146 F. Supp. 625, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 203, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2484, 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,428 (N.D. Ill. 1956).

Opinion

BARNES, Chief Judge.

The writer felt that he should prepare and file a relatively short memorandum supplementary to the formal findings of fact and conclusions of law that he has this day filed. Unfortunately, nothing but the great length of a memorandum that would cover all of the large number of questions considered by counsel warrants the use of the words “relatively short”.

Sola Electric Co., the plaintiff, complained of General Electric Company, the defendant, charging infringement of Sola Patent No. 2,346,621, issued August 11, 1944, on an application filed November 13, 1943, and seeking an injunction and an accounting for damages. To the charge of infringement, General Electric Company pleaded the defenses of invalidity of the patent, non-infringement thereof, and unenforceability of the patent because of misuse thereof by the plaintiff. General Electric Company counter-claimed against Sola Electric Co. for a declaratory judgment that Sola Patent No. 2,346,621 is invalid and that General Electric Company has neither infringed nor contributed to infringement thereof. General Electric Company also counterclaimed against Sola Electric, charging infringement by Sola Electric Co. of Brooks Patent No. 2,-562,693, issued July 31, 1951, on an application filed December 31, 1948, and owned by General Electric Company and seeking an injunction and an accounting for damages. To this counter-claim Sola Electric Co. pleaded the defense of non-infringement.

It seems to be necessary to quote from Sola Patent No. 2,346,621 at length as follows:

Page 1, column 1, line 1:
“This invention relates to alternating current supply systems for consumption circuits having negative resistance characteristics, more particularly the invention relates to self-regulating systems for supplying alternating current at substantially unity power factor to load devices requiring high starting voltages and having resistance characteristics which vary inversely with the operating current flowing there-through, and the invention has for an object the provision of improved, *627 inexpensive and reliable systems of this character.
“While the invention is not limited thereto, it is particularly applicable to and will be described in connection with gaseous discharge tubes, such, for example, as cold cathode fluorescent tubes for lighting purposes. Although cold cathode tubes of the fluorescent type have heretofore been known, the tendency in the lighting art has been toward the use of hot cathode tubes due principally to the difficulties encountered in supplying cold cathode tubes with the necessary high voltage for ignition and thereafter controlling the operating current supplied thereto. * * * ”
Page 1, column 2, line 8:
“ * * * it is a further object of this invention to provide a supply system for cold cathode type tubes employed for illumination purposes which is compact, inexpensive and reliable, which is self-regulating, and which will supply an optimum operating current to the tube at substantially unity power factor.
“In my prior Patent No. 2,143,-745 issued January 10, 1939, there is described and broadly claimed a constant voltage transformer capable of general application which employs a high reluctance magnetic shunt for effecting a relatively loose coupling between the primary and-secondary sides in combination with a resonant circuit in the secondary side for maintaining the secondary voltage substantially constant over a wide range of primary voltages. In my later patent, No. 2,212,198, issued August 20, 1940, an additional current-limiting winding and high reluctance shunt are employed, in cooperation with a resonant circuit and shunt similar to that described in my Patent No. 2,143,745, in order to provide a limited current supply to a tube or similar load device having a negative resistance characteristic.
“In carrying out the present invention, I employ certain of the basic principles set forth in my above referred to patents, but the various elements of my improved systems are differently connected and are so arranged and proportioned as to provide improved, more compact and more economical systems particularly intended for supplying load devices such as cold cathode fluorescent tubes having negative resistance characteristics. Thus I provide, in accordance with one embodiment of my invention, a transformer having primary and secondary windings adapted to be respectively connected to an alternating current source of predetermined frequency and voltage and to a load such as a cold cathode tube having a negative resistance characteristic. The transformer includes a high reluctance shunt magnetically disposed between the windings, which shunt. is substantially ineffective when no current flows in the secondary circuit of the transformer, the shunt functioning upon the flow of current in the secondary winding to divert part of the flux produced in the transformer core by the primary and secondary currents and thus to relax the coupling between the windings. Connected in series circuit relation with the secondary winding and the load;j I provide a condenser having a capacity reactance so proportioned, relative to circuit constants of the transformer and the load, as to resonate with the secondary winding and provide in .the secondary load circuit an oscillatory condition of a series resonant nature. The primary and secondary windings may be electrically sepa *628 rate and may be connected together in auto-transformer relation, as desired, and a plurality of secondary windings for supplying separate loads may be associated with a single primary winding, each secondary winding being serially connected with a suitable condenser and load. In the latter case a suitable shunt will of course be magnetically disposed between each secondary winding and the common primary winding.
“For a more complete understanding of my invention, reference should now be had to the drawings in which:
“Fig. 1 illustrates a suitable coil and core structure which may be employed in systems embodying my invention ;
“Fig. 2 is a somewhat schematic wiring diagram showing one system of circuit connections which may be used when the core and coil arrangement of Fig. 1 is employed in carrying out my invention;
“Fig. 3 is a somewhat diagrammatic view similar to Fig. 1 but showing another coil and core arrangement ;
“Fig. 4 is a circuit diagram of a system embodying my invention and employing the coil and core arrangement of Fig. 3; and
“Fig. 5 is a vector diagram showing the phase relations of the voltage which may exist in the secondary circuit of a system embodying my invention.
“(Note. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are next hereinafter set forth.)

*629

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

Related

Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
448 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court, 1980)
General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
349 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ohio, 1972)
Jo. C. Calhoun, Jr., and Esther C. Young, Executors of the Estate of Niels A. Christensen (Deceased) v. The United States
339 F.2d 665 (Court of Claims, 1964)
Buxton Incorporated v. Julen Incorporated
223 F. Supp. 697 (S.D. New York, 1963)
General Industries Co. v. Birmingham Sound Reproducers, Ltd.
194 F. Supp. 693 (E.D. New York, 1961)
Dick E. Stearns and the D. E. Stearns Company, a Partnership Composed of Dick E. Stearns and Ellen Belson Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor, a Corporation, John P. Rasor and Leo H. Tinker, Tinker & Rasor, a Corporation, John P. Rasor and Leo H. Tinker v. Dick E. Stearns and the D. E. Stearns Company, a Partnership Composed of Dick E. Stearns and Ellen Belson Stearns
252 F.2d 589 (Ninth Circuit, 1958)
Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor
252 F.2d 589 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 F. Supp. 625, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 203, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2484, 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sola-electric-co-v-general-electric-company-ilnd-1956.