Manhattan General Const. Co. v. Helios-Upton Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 684,165 for a method of regulating electric circuits, and No. 684,340 for a regulating device for arc lamp circuits, both granted to Malcolm H. Baker, October 8, 1901. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD,
District Judge.1 The difficulty in the use of the alternating current for electric lighting, in a circuit with arc lamps in series, lies in the fact that the potential of the current having necessarily to be kept constant, at the maximum required for the full number of lamps, as these are severally turned off one by ope there is an accumulation of pressure, due to the varying decrease of
which is destructive to the apparatus employed. ‘ The I means proposed to meet and obviate this in the patents in suit is the insertion in the circuit in series with the lamps of a reactance device,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Permutit Co. v. WadhamCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
- Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument CompaniesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- United Chromium, Inc. v. International Silver Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Texas Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.