1899 Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases  
March 7th, 8th, and 9th, April 15th, and May 12th, 1899. THE WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT COMPANY, LD., v. THE DAY-LIGHT INCANDESCENT MANTLE OOMPANY, LD., AND OTHERS. 30 Patent.-,A..ction for infrirutement.e-Gonetruction of Sl)eci.ficrttiol~.-lnfril~ge ment.i-Judoment for Plaintiffs.-Costs as betioeen solicitor and client.-Defendani 1~rregularly served. 35 In 1885 a Patent ioas granted to lV. for the manufacture of an illuminant appliance for gas and other burners. For this purpose he stated
more » ... in his Specification that he emploued a compound of oxide of lanthanum and eirconiurn, or of these ioitli oxide of yttriuJn, that he found the follouJing proportions very suitable, 60 IJer cent. oxide of zircon/tum" 20 jJer cent. oxide Of, 40 lanihanum; and 20 lJer cent. oxide of yttriU,JI1 , that the oxide of yttri'llJn might by guest on March 17, 2016 Downloaded from ·V·o1. XVI., No. 17.J AND TRADE~IARIt CASES. 345 'lIke Welsbach Incandescent Gas Lt'ght (knnparu], Ld., v. The Dayl1:ght Incandescent Mantle Compans], Ld., and Others. be dispensed ioitn, the composition then beiru) 50 '1)er cent. oxide of zirconium and 50 per cent. of lanthanum, that instead of usinq oxide of yttrium, ytterite, and instead of oxide of lantha.num; cerite earth, containing no didsrmiurn, and but little cerium, might be emploued. The process described consisted of impreg-5 nating a fabric ioitli a solution of nitrates or acetates of the oxides, and after exposing ,it to ammonia gas burninq o.-tJ the fabric, leaving the earthy matters in the form of a skeleton cal) or hood. The Patentee also stated that the fabric could be painted with or dipjJed into a concentrated solution of the salts so as to provide a fresh layer of the metallic salts. He claimed " the manu-10 "facture substantially as herein described, of an illuminant appliance for gas " and other burners, consisting of a cap or hood made of fabric impregnated uiith. " the substances mentioned and treated as S9tforth." The oumers of this Patent brought an action for infrinqemeni of the same against a Comparut, who uiere manuf'acturinq mantles, which consisted sl!Jbstantially of zirconia urith. a half 15 per cent. of cerium, the mantle of zirconia being made by W.'s process, and beinq painted ioith. a collodion solution of cerium. The Defendants denied infringement and alleged that, if the Patent covered what they did, it uias bad for insufficiency and uio.nt of 'ntiZ,ity. Cerite earth, mentioned in the Specification, uias proued to be the principal source of lanthanum, and to consist 20 substantiallu of cerium, lanthanum, and didurnium. Held, that the Defendants. had infringed the Patent. Judoment was given for the PlaintijJswith costs, and (a certificate of validity having }Jreviously been gran,ted) no order WCtS made depriving the Plaintiffs of costs as between solicitor and client.
doi:10.1093/rpc/16.17.344 fatcat:ailzb5m73ff2dah3zggi5rpigi