Managing and Defending IP:

courtroom trials of electrical patents

SHOT Conference, Lisbon,

11-14 October 2008

Stathis Arapostathis and Graeme Gooday

University of Leeds

OVERVIEW

• Introduction

• The Inventor’s Identity: S. Varley and the Compound Winding

• Monopoly Thwarted: ‘Lame Fox’ vs Supply Companies

• Epilogue

Introduction

• Little historical attention on patent litigation in UK• ‘Moral economy of invention’ as a tool for

historiographical analysis of techno-science. • Focus on morals of monopolistic patent practice • Patent litigation not just a matter of capitalist conflict

about profit (pace Hughes)• Can be about an individual’s right to be identified as

inventor of a technology (irrespective of profits)• Also about claiming integrity of inventor’s reputation

1870s arrival of the dynamo

Models c.1870 by Zénobe Theophile Gramme (1826-1901)

Samuel Varley and the winding of dynamos

• New electrical power supply technologies of 1870s/80s – great need for high stability of supply voltage (esp for consumers)

• Winding dynamos and guaranteeing voltage regulation was a major technical challenge for electricians.

• von Siemens, Gramme, Varley, Crompton, Kapp and Brush worked on the problem and patented techniques for winding.

• 1876 Samuel Varley filed patent No 4,905 covering a form of dynamo and winding of the magnets for voltage regulation.

Types of dynamo windings in the 1870s and 1880s

Wheatstone and Varley

The Brush winding patent

• 1878 Charles Brush granted a patent in the name of Herbert John Haddan, Brush’s UK patent agent. Transferred to Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corporation

• 1885 the company applied for patent amendment - prompting a challenge from both Siemens and Crompton companies.

• But case judged in favor of Anglo-American Brush company.

• 1886 Brush Corporation started action against infringers- Crompton Co had to agree to pay royalties and take licenses.

Samuel Varley vs. Anglo-American Brush IVarley’s polemic in Telegraphic Journal (1887):

i) He had anticipated Brush invention with his patent of 1876 where he described ‘compound winding’.

ii) Brush knew about his inventions via a network of industrial intelligence

iii) Compound winding was a method he had developed after 10 years experimenting & practical experience.

iv) His notebook entries would prove his priority and long term commitment to experimentation

Samuel Varley vs. Anglo-American Brush IIVarley’s aims:• to legitimize a master narrative about his invention of

the winding of dynamos.• to fashion himself as the ‘morally principled’

inventor who claimed credit not for any financial profit but for justice and honour.

• to construct a public representation of himself as victim of influential scientific authorities (who could not accept an ‘outsider’ as himself).

• BUT nobody acts to defend Varley’s claims, until…

King, Brown and Company vs. Anglo-American Brush Company

• King, Brown and Co. threatened by Brush Co. for manufacturing and exploiting the principles of compound winding of dynamos.

• October 1888, King, Brown and Co., filed case against the Brush Co. to prevent any extension of the Haddan-Brush patent.

• 27 November 1888: Court Session in Edinburgh. Varley a key witness for King, Brown and Co.

• 26 June 1889: King, Brown and Co. win case, Brush loses two appeals

Varley’s vindication - June 1889

• Judgement of Lord Trayner, on the outcome of the case: Regarding Samuel Varley “there is no doubt in my mind of his honesty”

• Varley thus established in court as inventor of compound winding, and trustworthy witness

• BUT the destruction of the Brush patent does not bring Varley any income – nobody could henceforth accrue royalties on patents for dynamo winding

Monopoly Thwarted: ‘Lame-Fox’ vs. Supply Companies

• Patent No 3988, 9 October 1878, (Provisional Specification).

9 April 1879 (Complete Spec).

• Licences granted to the British Electric Light Company (Ltd.)

Then to the Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corporation, but remained inactive.

• July 1890, Lane Fox assigned patent to the Lane-Fox Electrical Company Ltd.

St George Lane-Fox c.1900

Overview of the Lane Fox ‘tree system’

Secondary batteries were used between the network and the earth as ‘reservoirs’, a terminology that raised concerns about the real intentions of Lane-Fox.

(Reports of Patents, Design and Trade Marks, 1892, 223-224)

‘Lame-Fox’ vs. Supply Companies

• Lane-Fox Electrical Company Ltd. asked supply companies and private users to pay royalties

• ‘Defence Association’ - established by individuals and metropolitan supply companies against Lane-Fox’s claims.

• November 1890, Lane-Fox started an action against companies and owners of private installations using his patent.

• Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review: Lane-Fox sought to establish an illegitimate industrial monopoly

Lane-Fox: ‘Liberator’ but Looser• Lane-Fox camp: he was a model of moral inventor fighting for

justice, for credit – not just for financial gains. • ‘He [Lane Fox] wished to liberate and not to strangle the industry.

… but as true liberty consists in justice, and not in injustice, the company will vindicate the patents, and insist upon the payment of royalties in respect of them’.

Letter by C.A.Stepheson (General Manager Lane-Fox Co.) to the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review

• February 1892: case of Lane-Fox v Kensington and Knightsbridge.

April 1892: Decision against the claims of Lane-Fox.

• ‘In the end, if the plaintiff has suffered in pocket, he has at any rate vindicated his reputation as an electrical engineering pioneer’. Electrician, 12 August 1892, 393-394

Epilogue• Patent litigation over inventions could contribute to individual

inventors’ social/ cultural capital

• This differentiated them from the corporate culture which pursue patents mainly as tools of market domination.

• Litigation over invention not just a matter of financial gain but also of credit, prestige and honour.

• Through court cases and disputes emerged a moral economy of invention.