Brush Electric Co. v. Western Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Northern Division. These cases were argued at our October session, 1895. They involve questions of the validity, construction, and infringement of letters patent No. 219,208, granted September 2, 1879, to Charles A. Brush, for a double-carbon electric lamp.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Northern Division. These cases were argued at our October session, 1895. They involve questions of the validity, construction, and infringement of letters patent No. 219,208, granted September 2, 1879, to Charles A. Brush, for a double-carbon electric lamp. In case No. 271 the Scribner lamp, made In conformity with patent No. 418,758, granted January 7, 1890, to Charles A. Scribner, and in base No. 272 the Monitor lamp and the Twin lamp, which the appellee asserts the right to make and use under letters…
1Opinion of the Court
WOODS, Circuit Judge,
after making the foregoing statement, de- ’ t livered the opinion of the court.
The decree in the Toledo Case awarded a perpetual injunction, hut with an order of reference to a master to ascertain the damages by reason of infringement, and for that purpose the suit, it is conceded, is still pending. It is therefore only an interlocutory decree, and not available as an estoppel in respect to any issue in these suits. Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106; McGourkey v. Railway Co., 146 U. S. 545, 13 Sup. Ct. 172; David Bradley Manuf'g Co. v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Barnard v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- David Bradley Manuf'g Co. v. Eagle Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1893
- Humiston v. StainthorpSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1912
- Australian Knitting Co. v. GormlyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1905
- Hills & Co. v. HooverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906
- American Foundry Equipment Co. v. WadsworthCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
- Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Larkin Automotive Parts Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.