Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/304

 292 FEDERAL REPORTER. �CoLT, D. J, This is an application for a preliminary injunction. The complainants, having acquired title by assignment to a certain patent issued to Charles S. Westland for an improvement in lamps, charge the defendant with an infringement. This patent, No. 206,061, was issued July 16, 1878, and the claim is as follows: �" The combination, with a lamp for burning explosive or inflammable cils or fluids, of a closed receptacle containing carbonic acid gas under pressure, so located with relation to the burner that in case of an explosion the compressed gas will be liberated, substantially as and for the purposes set forth." �The object of this invention was to avoid the danger from fire, in the event of an explosion of a lamp in which kerosene or other inflam- mable fluid migbt be uaed, by means of a closed receptacle, or chamber of glass or other fragile material, charged with carbonic acid gas fit- ting about or into the oil reservoir. Immediately upon the issuing of the patent, Westland sought capital to establish the business of man- ufacturing the lamp. Among thosewhom he met was the defendant, Heath, and on September 16, 1878, he sold to him one-third interest in the patent. On July 3, 1879, the complainants White and Fair- brother bought the remaining two-thirds, and on January 38, 1881, they also purchased the other one-third of Heath and another person to whom he had transferred a part. We thus find that the defendant was interested in this patent up to January 28, 1881. On March 1, 1881, the defendant took eut letters patent. No. 238,234, for an im- provement in safety lamps, and he claims that the lamps complained of are made under this patent. The position taken by the plaintifis is — First, that the lamps in question are not made under the defendant's patent, because the main features of that patent, which consisted of certain details in the construction of safety lamps, are omitted; second, that even if made under that patent they would be an infringement of the Westland patent. �The inquiry whether the lamps made by the defendant conform to his patent we deem, under the circumstances, immaterial. The only defence offered by Heath is his patent, and if that does not protect him he is guilty, under the evidence, of the charge of infringement. An examination of the defendant's patent shows that it embraces the main elements of the Westland patent. It consists of a combination, with a lamp for burning explosive oils, of a closed receptacle contain- ing carbonic acid gas, so located that in case of an explosion the com- pressed gas will be liberated. What is claimed in the specification is an improvement "in certain details of construction whereby the pas- ��� �