[D8935ABM1], Letter from William J Jenks, Sherburne Blake Eaton to Thomas Alva Edison, October 21st, 1889
https://edisondigital.rutgers.edu/document/D8935ABM1
→ View document with UniversalViewer
→ View document on Archive.org
→ Re-use this digital object via a IIIF manifest
Title
[D8935ABM1], Letter from William J Jenks, Sherburne Blake Eaton to Thomas Alva Edison, October 21st, 1889
Editor's Notes
Dear Sir:-- By the encclosed correspondence you will see that we are in search of information as to the alleged expiration of the Spanish Feeder Patent. In referring to the files of the Light Co. I cannot find the original of the letter of Jan 23rd, written by Mr. Dyer to Dr. Crowell, nor can I find any of the enclosures. It has been suggested that these papers were possibly forwarded to you, and as it now becomes of importance that the action of the Continentale Company in the matter shall be investigated, will you kindly refer to your files, and, if possible, send us some information on this point. If nothing is found please return as promptly as consistent the papers here enclosed. Yours ery truly, W.J Jenks, For S.B Eaton, General Consul. 3 enclosures####[Enclosure]: PATENT LITIGATION COMMITTEE.####Mr. Eaton's Mem. Of Business For Meeting, October 14th, 1889####FIRST: What answer shall be made to the letter of SHIPPEY BROTHERS, London, Septermber 13th, 1889, asking if we wish to purchase the U.S WOODWARD Patent, dated August 29th, 1876. No. 181,613. Mr. JOHNSON has examined this matter, and will report.####SECOND: Mr DYER'S answer to Mr. POPE'S book on "Evolution of the Electric Incandescent Lamp." I will report what progress has been made in this matter and what Mr. EDISON thinks about printing Mr. DYER'S reply.####THIRD: Re Opinion of JUSTICE BRADLEY in the Fibrous-Carbon Case. Does the Committee approve my action in printin gin pamphlet form, this opinion. Shall a large number of copies be struck off for general distribution; and if so, to what extent and at whose expense? Shall we have an article on the decision prepared for and printed in the tribune, at an expense of about $500? Shall we insist upon the decree being entered at Pittsburgh at an early date, or shlal we leave that to the other side to do whenever they please?####[Note on the margin: Don't think would spend any ---- money ---- decision]####FOURTH: touching the matter of securing a further decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of the effect of the expiration of a foreign patent, I am prepared to report progress pursuant to the adopted resolution, contained in the Fifth Sec. of my Mem. Of the meeting of this Committee held on September 26th, 1889.####The POHL Case recently decided against us by JUDGE WALLACE can possibly be advanced on the calendar of the United States Supreme Court, so as to be argued and decided this Winter. The only expense will be that of paying one or two lawyers to argue the law points on our behald and to prepare the brief, Mr. SEWARD and Mr. LOWERY argued the case before JUDGE WALLACE. Mr. THURSTON is also familiar with the case. Whom shall we employ to argue the case on appeal?####Fifth: Proposed arrangement with our opponents touching the Hydro-Carbon Case at Trenton. This is the matter referred to in the Seventh Sec. of my Mem. For the last meeting. Mr. EDISON and Mr. UPTON both said positively that the Hydro-Carbon process in suit is not used at the lamp factory, and that so far as out manufacture of lamps is concerned, they have nothing to fear from an adjudication sustaining this patent. The matter, therefore, becomes a question of business policy. Shall we consent to short dates in this case in exchange for a like consent to be given us? I am prepared to make a statement before this question is decided. Probably I shall have nothing to say about te expiration of the Spanish Patent as affecting our progress in this suit.####SIXTH: Filement Case. Since the last meeting of the Committee, the Counsel and Experts in this case have spent a day in conference, and will meet once more for conference prior to our putting PROFESSOR BARKER on the stand on the 19th inst. A very important question touching the scope of expert testimony to be entered by us, remains to be settled, and I would be glad to explain it to the Committee, for their consideration. It is important.####SEVENTH: Referring to the Ninth Sec. of my Mem. For the last meeting, Mr. JENKS and Mr. STIERINGER have examined the THOMSON-HOUSTON on Central Station plant at New Haven and Paterson, Mr. JENKS has made a full report in writing. The New Haven plant infringes twenty-seen of our patents. Shall we commence actions on these patents against that Company, or shall we preferably sue the WESTINGHOUSE Companies? Their plants infringe fewer of our patents but enough are infringed to afford the basis for at least six or seven suits if desired. Mr. JENKS is now making an examination of a WESTINGHOUSE plan, in connection with this question.####EIGHT: Shall we retain any further the expert? I refer particularly to MR. E.S. RENWICK.####NINTH: Shall I employ further attorneys, and what ones./ We have ten patents, all but two, well advanced in litigation, which we can press. They are the presevation by the Company. The General Counsel is hereby instructed to promptly act on this resolution.####Respectfully Submitted, S.B. Eaton, General Counsel.####120 Broadway, October 11, 1889.####[Enclosure]####A Meeting of the Parent Litigation Committee of the EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY was held, pursuant to call, at the Office of MESSRS. DREXEL, MORGAN & CO., 23 Wall Street, on Monday, Oct. 14, 1889, at 4 p.m.####PRESENT: MESSRS> WRIGHT, DAVIS, SMITHERS, HERRICK and EATON.####On Motion, the reading of the minutes was dispensed with.####The following memo. Of business was presented by the General Counsel. (Copy memo.)####The matter referred to in the first section of MAJOR EATON'S memorandum was passed owing to the absence of Mr. JOHNSON.####On Motion made and duly seconded, 5,000 copies of JUDGE BRADLEY's decision were ordered printed for general distribution; and it was ; and it was resolved that no further publication on the subject be made in the tribune.####The question of advancing the POHL case on the calendar was referred to General Counsel with power; also the question of the employment of necessary counsel, in addition to Mr. SEWARD.####On Motion made and duly seconded, the proposed arrangement for advancing rapidly the Hydro-Carbon case at Trenton was declined, unless a satisfactory case can be selected by our counsel to be equally pressed.####On Motion made and duly seconded, the power to pressa limited number of new patent suits was referred to General Counsel with power.####The question of employing additional counsel for these cases was also referred to Mr. HEERRICK and the General Counsel, with power, the idea being that in minor cases comparatively inexpensive lawyers would be required.####The question of employing Mr. RENWICK was laid over with the recommendation that the General Counsel use MR. KENNELLY.####On Motion made and duly seconded, it was####RESLVED, that the Attorneys and Counsel in the fibrous carbon case be and hereby are requested to turn over to the General counsel all documents, stenographic reports or notes and other data for permanent preservation by the company. The General Counsel is hereby isntructed to promptly not on this resolution.####The meeting was then adjourned.####ATTEST: J.H HERRICK, Act. Secy.####[name mentions]: S.B. Eaton, W.J Jenks, Compagnie Continentale Edison, Thos Edison, P{hilip S. Dyer, Mr. Herrick, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Kennelly, Sewared, Davis, Judge Bradley, Mr. Johnson. POHL Case, Smithers, Drexel, Morgan & Company, Wright, Westinghouse, Thomson-Houston Company, Shippey Brothers, Patent Litigation Committee, Mr. Pope, Spanish feeder patent, fibrous carbon patent, Mr. Crowell, Upton, Stieringer, Professor Barker, Filement Case
Recipient
Date
1889-10-21
Type
Folder/Volume ID
D8935-F
Microfilm ID
126:291
Document ID
D8935ABM1
Publisher
Thomas A. Edison Papers, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University