Consolidiated Electric Light Co. v. Mckeesport Light Co.

159 U.S. 465 (1895)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

For many years prior to 1880, experiments had been made by a large number of persons, in various countries, with a view to the production of an incandescent light which could be made available for domestic purposes. Almost all of these experiments had not been attended with success. It was established that the conductor must be enclosed in an air-tight bulb, to prevent it from being consumed by the oxygen in the atmosphere. It was also discovered that carbon contained in itself the elements of its own destruction, and was not a suitable material for the burner of an incandescent lamp. P is the owner of the Sawyer and Man patent. That patent is no longer in use and was never a commercial success. It does not embody the principle of high resistance with a small illuminating surface. It does not have the filament burner of the modern incandescent lamp. Its lamp chamber is defective, and that the lamp manufactured by P and put upon the market is substantially the Edison lamp; but it is said that, in the conductor used by Edison, (a particular part of the stem of the bamboo lying directly beneath the silicious cuticle, the peculiar fitness for which purpose was undoubtedly discovered by him,) he made use of a fibrous or textile material, covered by the patent to Sawyer and Man, and is, therefore, an infringer. It was admitted, however, that the third claim -- for a conductor of carbonized paper -- was not infringed. The two main defenses to the Sawyer and Man patent are (1) that it is defective upon its face, in attempting to monopolize the use of all fibrous and textile materials for the purpose of electric illumination; and (2) that Sawyer and Man were not the first to discover that these were better adapted than mineral carbons to such purposes. P filed a bill in equity against D seeking damages for patent infringement based on a lighting system developed by Edison Electric Light Company (Edison). Edison’s patent used carbonized bamboo. P argued infringement because bamboo was a “fibrous or textile material” covered by its patent. The court rejected this argument and held P’s patent invalid. P appealed.