# Appendix — United States v. Adams > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0221%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 383 U.S. 39 ## Text SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Octroser Term, 1965 No. 55 UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, vs. BERT N. ADAMS, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS INDEX Original Print Record from the United States Court of Claims OD 6 is ooo ssiree sos cas a 1 Defendant’s answer to petition..................... i 4 Memorandum of pretrial conference, signed by Com- missioner Donald E. Lane, dated June 8, 1961..... p 6 Stipulation te be submitted to the Commissioner Don- ald E. Lane at the pre-trial hearing, June 8, 1961. . v 9 Master Index to the Transcript of testimony of July EE Ms FO Csi Geta a oC wn oH. aa 12 Transcript of testimony, July 10,1961.......... Jats 1 20 NOOR IY Re pie et 1 20 Colloquy between court and counsel............ 2 20 Statement on behalf of plaintiffs by Mr. Reilly. . 16 29 Testimony of Bert N. Adams —direct (by Mr. Huettner) .. 30 38 er re ee 38 43 Colloquy between court and counsel......... co ee 88 Transeript of testimony, July 11, 1961............ 117 91 Offers in evidence............................ 119 91 Testimony of Bert N. Adams —cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... 121 93 —redirect (by Mr. Huettner) 136 102 Testimony of Mrs. Emma Adams —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... INDEX Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- Transcript of testimony, July 11, 1961—Continued Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... oe EL a i Dar ee Testimony of Charles L. Mantel] —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... ee Bh NN Gs ish eee ee, Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... Transcript of testimony, July 12, 1961............. Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (resumed) —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... I A i ge ricn ss ew cece nc ceess Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... Offers in evidence.................. Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)... . Cee a ORR ee ee rc: Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)..... Offer in evidence..................... Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly) .. Transcript of testimony, July 13, 1961............ Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (resumed) —direct (by Mr. Reilly)... Offer in evidence................... Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —direct (by Mr. Reilly)... Offers in evidence..................... Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... Cer Us rN Testimony of Charles L. Mantell —cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... —yredirect (by Mr. Reilly)... Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp —direct (by Mr. Arseneau). . Transcript of testimony, July 14,1961............. Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp —cross (by Mr. Reilly)...... CUO GUE I is eck oo ks ine oes peep: Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp —redirect (by Mr. Arseneau) Testimony of Joseph C. White —direct (by Mr. Arseneau). . Offers in evidence.............. Original Print 108 121 132 160 161 168 168 169 170 197 INDEX lii Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Transcript of testimony, July 14, 1961—Continued Original Print Testimony of Joseph C. White ' —cross (by Mr. Reilly)...... 636 382 Ciler OUMINR So ag oo ee ek wee 641 385 Testimony of Joseph C. White —redirect (by Mr. Arseneau) 642 385 Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (rebuttal) —direct (by Mr. Arseneau) . 645 388 —cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... 647 389 Reporter’s certificate (omitted in printing)......... 648 Trial Exhibits: No. 2—U. 8S. Patent No. 2,636,060 to Adolph Fischbach, et al. dated April 21, 1953, “Primary Battery and Method of Making the Same” COMMON os so oe ks eh ae 649 390 No. 6—U. S. Patent No. Re. 23,863 to Melvin F. Chubb reissued October 5, 1954, “Cuprous Chlo- ride Electrodes” (excerpts)................ 650 392 No. 16—U. S. Patent No. 2,322,210 to Bert N. Adams, dated June 22, 1943, “Battery”... 652 394 No. 12—Certain evidentiary material pursuant to the voluntary discovery stipulation which was filed February 17, 196i (excerpts)........... 654 397 Page 2—Paragraph, dated April 24, 1957 re examination of Mr. Adams’ battery by Dr. A. Fischbach, Nicholas Wilburn and H. J. WN ec oe eid 0S 654 397 Page 3—Memorandum from J. D. O’Connell, Signal Corps, dated January 14, 1942, sub- ject: “Neutro Cell Storage Battery”...... 655 397 Page 5—Memorandum from Oscar C. Maier, Lieut. Colonel, Signal Corps, dated Jan- COSY Fig Pe ce os wos es Ds 656 398 Page 6—Letter from Clarence R. Kingston, Signal Corps to Bert Nemo Adams, dated Weaweniay By Be ik Sih veh he's os 657 399 Pages 7, 8 & 9—Letters from J. C. Green to Mr. John J. Sandhaas, dated February 7, 1942, April 8, 1942 and April 18, 1942... 658 399 Pages 11 and 12—Memorandum from J. W. McBurney, Bureau of Standards to Col. Lent, dated December 16, 1942, subject: “Storage Battery #38610, John J. Sand- Are te ae oe ue ea eae a 661 401 Page 13—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr. John J. Sandhaas, dated March 24, 1943 663 403 IV INDEX Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Trial Exhibits—Continued No. 12—Certain evidentiary material pursuant to the voluntary discovery stipulation which was filed February 17, 1961 (excerpts)—Continued Page 16—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr. Burt N. Adams, dated September 2, 1943 Pages 17 and 18—Memorandum entitled, “Magnesium— Cuprous Chloride Cell”, dated November 26, 1943............... No. 13(a)—Information Bulletin No. 1, Revised— March 1941, The National Inventors Council CU also chee 3s WRNES Uehara es 45 No. 13(b)—Information Bulletin No. 2 (Revised 1942), National Inventors Council entitled, “How Inventors Can Aid The War Effort” GUE Spo Cas wid pdb ex koe bat vo cartes Further Stipulation executed on June 30, 1961 by John A. Reilly and on July 6, 1961 by William H. Orrick, Jr. and Paul F. Arseneau gare eee t vy oe No. 15—Page 1—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to Charles F. Kettering, dated January 7, 1942 Pages 2 & 3—Two page document entitied, “Characteristics of Neutro Cell”. ....... Page 4~-Graph entitled, “Potentia! graph of a 500 Mills cell of 3 Troy ounces weight taken with solenoid vane type meter of 0-5 volt range (Corrected for meter resistance) Page 5—Graph entitled, “Capacity graph of a 500 milliampere cell of 3 Troy ounces weight taken with solenoid vane type meter of 0-400 Mills with added resistance in OBOE Ss Ba his ok ech ee oe Page 12—Letter from Bert Adams to Capt. C. Kingston, U. S. Signal Corps, dated Mareh 26, 1042...................0.... Page 13—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to Department of Commerce, dated March %3, ye eee Ges ta au ae Pages 15 & 16—-Two page document entitied, “Applications of the Adams Neutro Cell” Pages 17 & 18—Two page document entitled, “The Adams Neutro Cell”.............. Page 19—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to Department of Commerce, dated June 4, Beis a Cv ep ke dee Mies Zeeks Coes No. 16—Page 7—Memorandum re expenses for trip to Squires Labs at Ft. Monmouth (ex- 667 671 691 Print 419 420 425 INDEX Vv Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Original Print Farther Stipulation executed on July 5, 1961 by John A. Reilly, William H. Orrick, Jr., and Paul F. FEES RIED iy Seen ER ENT Be caer 695 428 Trial Exhibit No. 17—Page 1, Letter from John J. Sandhaas to Captain Shumaker, Research and Development, Navy Dept., dated January D, FOci as GAT ie cain exces See hcae Toe. 697 430 Page 2—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to Bureav of Ordnance, Navy Dept., dated Sanmeny GD, WO: i kia Ade. 698 431 Page 3—Letter from Bert Adams to Director, Signal Corps Labs. dated February 9, 1942 699 431 Pages 5 & 6—Letters from Clarence R. Kingston, Captain Signal Corps to Bert Adams, dated March 9, 1942 and March- Pe ae RS ee a 700 = 432 Page 7—Letter from J. D. O’Connell, Lieui. Colonel, Signal Corps to Waud & Doherty, dated June 4, 1942..................... 702 434 Page 9—Memorandum—“To Whom It May Concern” by V. F. Payne, Signal Corps Ground Signal Service, dated August 10, WN SAM ec taees teak cot eRe es 703 434 Page 10—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr. Burt N. Adams, dated September 2, 1943 704 435 Commissioner’s Exhibits: No. 1—Military Specification-Batteries, Water Activated; and Batteries, Wet, Primary. MIL- B-17482B(Suips), 10 December 1958 (ex- eB ME ei BS Gis 5 3 is 705 = 435 No. 2(a)—Article from Proceedings Tenth An- nual Battery Research and Development Con- ference, “Water-Activated Batteries” by Mr. E. M. Morse, The Eagle-Picher Company (ex- | RRR RF MLL Ros Ok 5 ibaa Sage UM Pa ye 706 437 No. 2(b)—Article from Proceedings Eleventh Annual Battery Research and Development Conference, 22-23 May 1957, “Weter Activated Batteries” by E. M. Morse, Eagle-Picher Com- men. GOOGRIUED «ce fn oso Schein eehewdn ses 710 441 No. 2(e)—Article from Proceedings 12th Annuai Battery Research and Development Conference, 21-22 May 1958, “Water Activated Batteries” by Mr. Edward Broglio, The Eagle-Picher Com- po eae be Pe i pe 715 444 vi INDEX Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Plaintiffs’ Exhibits: Original Print No. 16—Pages 701 through 704 inclusive from the August 1950 issue of Electrical Engineering, containing article entitled “Special Purpose Batteries”, by Adolph Fischbach (excerpts)... 719 448 No, 17—Sheet entitled “Instruction Sheet for Testing Adams Neutro Cell, U.S.A. Patent No. 2,322,210—1943”, signed Bert Adams, July 13, WO aR... PSs ech Greece ees 721 452 No. 18—Burgess Battery Company brochure (ex- PIE Pee OPE re es oe ee 722 454 No. 19—Five-page document headed Ray-O-Vac Engineering Bulletin on “Characteristics of The Magnesium Cuprous Chloride Battery” (ex- WI Frac be se cep ee ee oink Kerk e eRe. 0 4 - 724 459 No. 37—Pages 202C, 203C and 204C from the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, August, 1952 containing articles entitled “Silver Chlo- ride-Magnesium Reserve Battery” by Ivan C. Blake and “The Cuprous Chloride-Magnesium Reserve Battery” by L. E. Pucher............ 725 460 No. 39—Paper entitled “Characteristics of The Silver Chloride-Magnesium Water Activated Battery” by J. B. Mullen and P. L. Howard, pages 529-545 inclusive............... 728 467 No. 40—U. S. Patent No. 2,817,697 to M. ‘F. Chubb, dated December 24, 1957, “Cuprous Chloride Magnesium Battery” (excerpts) . & 744 490 No. 41—U. S. Patent No. 2,745,893 to M. F. Chubb et al, dated May 15, 1956, “Cuprous Chloride Magnesium Cell With Cellophane Membrane” (excerpts)...................... 746 494 No. 42—Article entitled, “Primary Batteries” by George Wood Vinal (excerpts)............. 747 497 No. 43—Page 129 from Aviation Week for July 11, 1960 entitled “Missile Engineering” ..... 752 503 Defendant’s Exhibits: No. 1—Elementary Treatise—Electrie Batteries, From the French of Alfred Niaudet, 1880, Translated by L. M. Fishback, Cover sheet, Page ix, Pages 200-209, Chapter VII., “Chlo- WOM MI 2 5 og es lad Carvicee 6 en ores 753 505 . No. 2—U. S. Patent No. 282,634 to P. S. Hayes, Patented August 7, 1883, “Chloride-Of-Silver |” gaara aetna es ets as 7, eis 766 515 INDEX vill Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Defendant’s Exhibits—Continued Original Print No. 3—Galvanie Batteries, Their Theory, Con- struction and Use by 8S. R. Bottone, 1902, Cover Ghat, Page TOS. oe SS ns 769 519 No. 4—Primary Batteries by Henry S. Carhart, 1891, Cover Sheet, Pages 62-65.............. 776 525 No. 5—U. S. Patent No. 405,196 to J. A. Barrett, patented June 11, 1889, “Galvanic Battery’. 781 531 No. 6—U. S. Patent No. 457,116 by J. R. Hard, Patented August 4, 1891, “Galvanic Battery” 784 534 No. 7—U. S. Patent No. 454,598 to Philip Hatha- . way, Patented June 23, 1891, “Galvanie Bat- ss eS Ter Tr a aM ie TABS hs ie Se aes ee 790 539 No. 8—U. S. Patent No. 184,932 by Charles Louis . Van Tenac, Patented November 28, 1876, “Im- provement in Dry Electric Piles’........... 795 543 No. 9—U. 8S. Patent No. 434,593 to William M. Fink, Patented August 19, 1890, “Galvanic Bat- OFF 5s RG Be rb a RI 8 COs CRE TT aK 799 546 No. 10—U. S. Patent No. 512,055 by James J. Pearson, Patented January 2, 1894, “Cartridge- ee NN gs oe ea EG NS 2 803 549 No. 11—Practical Primary Cells by A. Mortimer Codd, 1929, Cover sheet, Pages 1-3, 43-44, 78- Oh, Say Bees oe a ig oo 806 553 No. 12—U. S. Patent No. 1,696,873 by Robert T. Wood, Patented December 25, 1928, “Mag- nesium Primary Cell”..................... 818 565 No. 13—U. S. Patent No. 1,920,151 by 8. Ruben, Patented July 25, 1933, “Potential Producing Shick ee eR Aa eee 821 568 No. 14—U. S. Patent No. 2,078,143 by Lucien Jules Jumau, Patented April 20, 1937, “Re- generative Electric Cell”.................... 825 572 No. 15—Manual of Chemistry by W. Simon, 1905, Cover sheet, and page 216................. 827 575 No. 16—Essentials of General Chemistry by B. Smith Hopkins and John C. Bailar, Jr., 1946, Cover sheet, fly leaf, pages 371-372 and rear Fk. ORES OL ORS egy, Sees ee a 830 580 No. 17—British Patent Specification No. 301, 923 by Guido Ferrabino, “Voltaic Cell”.......... 835 587 No. 18—Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 552,211 by Gustav W. Thurnauer and Milton M. Kohn, dated December 31, 1895, “Depolarizer for Primary Batteries and Method of Wie Gel ae 837 589 Vili INDEX Reeord from the United States Court of Claims—Con- tinued Defendant’s Exhibits—Continued Original = Print No. 19—A.D. 1880, 25th October. British No. 4341—Letters Patent to Gregoire Skrivanoff, of Paris, in the Republie of France, Gentleman, for an Invention of “An Improved Electrical Apparatus for Operating Bells, Signals, and Telegraphs” No. 20—British No. 49—Complete Specification, “Improvements in Galvanic Batteries for Pro- ducing Constant Currents”, Date of Applica- tion, lst Jan., 1891—Accepted, 21st November, 1891 : No. 21—Pages 104-116 from the Journal of Chemical Society, Vol. 53 (1888) containing article entitled “VI. The Constitution of the Copper-Zine, Copper-Tin Alloys” by A. P. Laurie No. 22—U. 8. Patent No. 269,454 to C. D. Park- hurst, Patented December 19, 1882, “Galvanic Battery” No. 23—U. 8S. Patent No. 653,770 to Albrecht Heil, Patented July 17, 1900, “Galvanic Bat- 7 tery’ No, 24-—U..S.. Patent No. 1,522,121 to J. K.M. Harrison, Patented January 6, 1925, “Power Plaintiffs’ requested findings of fact and conclusions of law (excerpts) Defendant’s Brief (excerpt) Defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ requested findings of fact and conclusions of law (excerpts) Opinion and findings of fact of Commissioner, Donald E. Lane, filed January 28, 1963 Annex to Plaintiffs’ reply brief being a verbatim copy of the Commissioner’s opinion and findings of fact with citations to the record, filed August 12, 1963. . Opinion, Per Curiam, decided April .7, 1964 Motion to alter or amend the opinion and judgment of the Court of April 17, 1964, or for a rehearing Opinion on plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the opinion and judgment of the Court or for a rehear- ing, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file supplemental petition, and defendant’s motion for an order com- pelling clarification of plaintiffs’ inconsistent repre- sentations, decided October 16, 1964 Order extending time to file petition for writ of certiorari Order allowing certiorari [fol. a] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Docket No. 163-60 Bert N. Apams, Emma Apams, Grorce Hauuinesy (Inpiviv- UALLY AND 4S Executor OF THE E'staTeE or OuaF Hatiinesy, DeceaseD), JANE MagskEL, Inis Perry, Lewis M. Sonort, Mary Exten Hauiinesy Semmers, anp Heten Lovise Sutcuirre (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXEcuTRIX OF THE EstaTE or Exnest M. Sutcuirre, Deckasep), Plaintiffs, Vv. Tue Unirep Srates or America, Defendant. Pretition—Filed May 2, 1960 To the Honorable the Chief Judge and Associate Judges of the Court of Claims of the United States: Plaintiffs respectfully state : 1. This isa suit-to recover plaintiff’s reasonable and entire compensation from defendant for the unauthorized and infringing use or manufacture by or for defendant, {fol. b] and for the unauthorized and infringing use within the United States in furtherance of the purposes of the Mu- tual Security Acts of 1951 and 1954, of an invention for a Battery described in and covered by United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 owned by plaintiffs now, or in the past, and further to recover damages for defendant’s breach of implied and/or express contracts existing be- tween defendant and said plaintiffs relating to compensa- tion of plaintiffs for use or manufacture by or for defend- ant of said invention or batteries disclosed to said defend- ant by plaintiff Bert N. Adams. [fol. ec] 4. United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 for ‘*Battery’’, were duly issued on June 22, 1943 to plaintiff Bert N. Adams, the inventor (hereinafter sometimes re- ferred to as ‘‘plaintiff Adams’’), on an application filed December 18, 1941. All claims of the patent, numbers 1-11 2 inclusive, are in suit here and defendant is charged with infringing all of them. [fol. d] 11. Upon information and belief, within six years next prior to March 7, 1957 and continuing to the date of filing this petition, batteries embodying the invention and in- fringing the claims of Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 were used or manufactured by or for defendant, and were used within the United States* without authorization or license of plaintiffs and without lawful right to use or manufacture the same, by: U. S. Signal Corps: Laboratories, Fort Monmouth, N. J. Ray-O-Vac Battery Company, Burgess Battery Company, National Carbon Company, Eagle-Picher Company, and possibly by others now unknown to plaintiffs. 12. In or about December 1941, plaintiff Adams went to the Navy Department, and di.closed to defendant full and complete information about, and consented that defendant use and manufacture his battery and invention with the understanding that he would be compensated for such use and manufacture. On information and belief plaintiff Adams met with a Captain R. S. Shumaker of the Navy, among others. [fol. e] 13. In or about January 1942, plaintiff Adams dis- closed to defendant, through its National Inventor’s Coun- cil, information concerning his battery and invention, in re- liance upon the contractual promise, express and/or im- plied, of the Council, as an agency of defendant that de- fendant would hold the information in confidence and/or make no use of the battery and invention without compen- sating plaintiff Adams therefor. * “Used within the United States’’ includes use in fur- therance of the purposes of the Mutual Security Acts of 1951 and 1954. 3 14. In or about January 1942, a second meeting was held at the Navy Department between plaintiff Adams and representatives of defendant. At said second meeting, plaintiff Adams was advised to take sample batteries to the Signal Corps Laboratories, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and plaintiff Adams was again led to believe by defendant that he would be compensated for his disclosure and for use made of his invention and battery by or for defendant. 15. On each of several dates, namely on or about Feb- ruary 9, 1942, March 13, 1942, January 11, 1943, January 20, 1943, July 10, 1943, August 10, 1943, June 22, 1948, and possibly others, plaintiff Adams delivered one or more batteries to the Signal Corps Laboratories of defendant at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in response to an official re- quest from representatives of defendant. 16. On information and belief, plaintiff Adams con- ferred with one or more of the following persons on his several trips to the Signal Corps Laboratories, Fort Mon- mouth, New Jersey: Dr. V. F. Payne, Mr. S. R. Daniels, | Mr. Ellis, Dr. Adolph Fischbach, Captain Clarence R. Kingston and various other representatives of the Govern- ment. At the conferences held with the above-named rep- resentatives, plaintiff Adams made full and complete dis- closures of his invention and battery and consented that defendant use his invention and patent and battery. Plain- [fol. f] tiff Adams was led to believe that he would be compensated for his disclosure and for use made by or for defendant of his invention, patent and battery. 20. A written claim for compensation for disclosure of information, and for use of said invention and said patent was presented to defendant through the Department of Defense on March 7, 1957. Defendant now takes the posi- tion, through its Department of Defense, that plaintiffs’ [fol. g] claims have been finally denied by defendant and therefore that plaintiffs’ remaining recourse is to seek relief in the Courts. 4 {fol. h] Wherefcre, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant for such sums as may be found, after completion of proofs herein and an accounting, to be the damages for breach of contract and the reasonable and entire compen- sation due plaintiffs for all unauthorized or unlicensed or unlawful use or manufacture by or for defendant and use within the United States of the said patented invention and battery, including interest as part of such entire and reasonable compensation, and for such other and further relief as this Court may find to be just and proper in the premises. /s/ John A. Reilly, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Office and Post Office Address, 165 Broadway, New York 6, N. Y. Of Counsel: Kenyon & Kenyon, James H. Callahan, New York, N. Y. (fol. i] [File endorsement omitted] In tHE Unitep States Court or Ciarms No. 163-60 [Title omitted] Derenpant’s Answer To Petrrion—filed November 18, 1960 Now comes the defendant, by its Assistant Attorney General, and answers the petition filed on May 2, 1960 as follows: (1) Defendant denies each and every allegation in para- graph 1 of the petition except that defendant admits is- suance of United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210. [fol. j] (4) As to paragraph 4, defendant admits only that United States Letters Patent No. 3,322,210 entitled [fol. k] ‘‘Battery’’ issued with 11 claims to Bert N. Adams on an application filed December 18, 1941. Defendant 5 specifically denies infringement of said Letters Patent 2,322,210. Defendant further denies that Bert N. Adams is an ‘‘inventor’’, or that said patent was ‘‘daly issued’’ with respect to any subject matter disclosed or claimed in said patent, insofar as the legal requirements for invention de- fined by the patent statute or applicable decisions are con- cerned. * * + * * * * [fol. 1] (11) Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 11 of the petition, leaving plaintiffs to make strict proof thereof. (12) Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and [fol. m] every allegation in paragraph 12 of the petition. (13) Defendant denies each and every allegation in paragraph 13 of the petition, except that defendant admits on information and belief that a letter relating to plaintiff Adams’ alleged invention was transmitted to the National Inventors Council in January of 1942. (14) Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and every allegation in paragraph 14 of the petition. (15) Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and every allegation in paragraph 15 of the petition, except that defendant admits on information and belief the existence of a letter from Bert N. Adams dated March 25, 1942, to Fort Monmouth which mentions the submission of samples, and defendant further admits on information and belief the existence of test records maintained by personnel at Fort Monmouth which determined that units constructed in ac- cordance with the teachings of United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 were inoperative and completely un- suitable for their intended purpose. (16) Defendant is without knowledge or information suf- ficient to form a belief and therefore denies each and every allegation in paragraph 16 of the petition, except that defendant admits on information and belief the recollection 6 by a Mr. A. P. Daniels of a conversation held with Bert N. Adams sometime in 1942. [fol. n] (20) Defendant admits, on information and be- lief, that a claim for compensation solely on behalf of plaintiff Bert N. Adams was made on March 7, 1957. De- fendant denies that any communication from The Depart- ment of Defense comprises a final denial of ‘‘plaintiffs’ ’’ claims, in that no administrative claim on behalf of any plaintiff other than said Bert N. Adams was ever presented. Further answering, defendant denies each and every other remaining allegation in paragraph 20. [fol. o] Wherefore, defendant prays that the petition herein be dismissed with costs assessed against plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, /s/ George Cochran Doub, __..Assistant—Attorney. ‘General. /s/_Paul _F. Ar. seneau, Attorney, Department of Justice. [fol. p] I~ tHe Unitep States Court or Cams No. 163-60 [Title omitted] MEMORANDUM OF PRETRIAL ConrERENCE—June 8, 1961 The parties met, pursuant to notice, in the Commis- sioner’s office, United States Court of Claims, Washington, D. C., June 8, 1961. Present: Donald E. Lane, Commissioner, John A. Reilly, KEsq., for plaintiffs, Paul F. Arseneau, Esq., for defendant, Also present: Robert Randall, Esq., T. Hayward Brown, Esq., H. M. Saragovitz, Esq., and Major F. K. Richwine. 1. Counsel for the parties furnished to the Commissioner a stipulation signed by counsel June 8, 1961, and com- prising five pages. This stipulation was approved by the 7 [fol. q] Commissioner and will be filed in the record in this case when all of the exhibits mentioned therein have been supplied by counsel. 2. Counsel for plaintiffs stated that it is the position of plaintiffs that silver chloride is an equivalent of cuprous chloride plus carbon when used in batteries having a mag- nesium electrode. 3. Defendant’s counsel stated that defendant will im- mediately seek and deliver when available to plaintiffs’ counsel drawings or sketches suowing the types of re- serve type, water-activated primary batteries containing a magnesium anode and a cathode comprising cuprous chloride; or cuprous chloride and silver chloride, procured by and delivered to the defendant within the 6-year period next preceding the filing of the petition herein. Each sketch will show the composition of the anode (if different than ordinary commercial magnesium sheet), the com- position of the cathode, the composition of the separator, if any; the composition of the electrolyte, if any, and the composition of any other components or material present upon activation, that takes part, or may take part, in the action of the cell. Each sketch will be accompanied by a [fol. r] full disclosure of the manufacturing process for making the cathode shown in the sketch, including details of any use of temperatures or pressures above room tem- perature or atmospheric pressure, or employment of liquids, solvents, binders, plastics, thermoplastics or other additives which may or may not appear in the completed cathode, or employment of special manufacturing tech- niques such as rollin, hot ioiling, milling, and calendering, compressing and the like. Defendant’s counsel will pro- duce and file with the Commissioner one sample of a water- activated battery having a magnesium anode and a silver chloride cathode, such as procured by the defendant during the 6-year period next preceding the filing of the petition. 4. Counsel for defendant agreed that defendant will notify plaintiffs on or before June 22, 1961, which of the now cited prior art items may be eliminated from con- sideration by plaintiffs, and also agreed to notify plaintiffs on or before said date the names of defendant’s fact wit- nesses, as far as then known. 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that both Mr. and Mrs. Bert 8 [fol. s] N. Adams will be available at the trial and that plaintiffs expect to call only one expert witness, and will advise defendant of the names of the fact witnesses on or before June 22, 1961. 6. The parties stipulated that the following documents be offered and received in evidence without objection as trial exhibit 13: (1) Information Bulletin No. 1 of the National In- ventors Council dated 1941; (2) Information Bulletin No. 2 of the National In- ventors Council dated 1942, and that such exhibit comprises accurate copies of genuine originals and may be used at the trial with the full force and effect of certified copies, and that such bulletins were available to plaintiff Bert N. Adams as of the dates thereof, and as to Information Bul- letin No. 2, that it was received by said Adams on or about February 7, 1942, as an enclosure to a letter dated February 7, 1942, from Green to Sandhaas previously produced by defendant. 7. Commissioner, in response to defendant’s request, extended defendant’s time to oppose plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 26, filed June 2, 1961, to expire on June 16, 1961. {fol. t] 8. The Commissioner directed that defendant respond to plaintiffs’ request for admissions, filed with the Commissioner June 5, 1961, on or before June 22, 1961. 9. Military specification MIL-B-17482B (SHIPS) dated 10 December 1958, comprising 15 printed pages, was marked Commissioner’s exhibit 1 herein, was received in evidence without objection, and is filed herewith. Defendant agreed to determine whether or not defendant has procured bat- teries made in accordance with said specification during the 6-year period next preceding the filing of the petition. 10. A photostatic copy of the proceedings of the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Battery Research and De- velopment Conferences, comprising 18 pages, was marked Commissioner’s exhibit 2, was received in evidence without objection, and is filed herewith. : /s/ Donald E. Lane, Onmuniosioners [fol.u] [File endorsement omitted. ] ti at ht [fol. v]} {File endorsement omitted] In toe Unirep States Court or Cuaims No. 163-60 [Title omitted] STIPULATION To BE SUBMITTED TO THE HonoraBLe .COMMIS- SIONER Donatp E. Lane at THE Pre-TriaL Heartnc— Dated June 8, 1961 and Filed June 14, 1961. Jurisdiction 1. The parties stipulated that this Court has jurisdic- tion over all the parties hereto, and over the issues raised by the petition and answer heretofore filed herein. Separation of Issues agreed _that-upon_proof_of-the-manu ture by or for, or the use by or for, the United States, of one or more articles alleged in the petition, or otherwise alleged on the record, to infringe the patent in suit, the issues of validity and infringement of the patent by the United States, will be first determined upon full proofs, findings of fact, and argument of counsel. The parties further agreed that the accounting issue including evi- dence as to the number of articles procured and/or the value of the patented inventions, or the extent of the lia- bility, if any, of the United States, and the amount of [fol. w] reasonable and entire compensation, if any, due to plaintiffs on account thereof, will be deferred until after the entry of the order of the Court of Claims on the issues of validity and/or infringement. Admissions 3. Defendant admitted that articles made as described in the documents offered and received in evidence without objection as Trial Exhibit 1, filed herewith, were procured by and delivered to the defendant within the six-year period next preceding the filing of the petition. 4. Soft copies of U.S. Letters Patent Nos. 2,636,060 to fae 10 Fischbach et al., 2,640,090 to Pucher et al., 2,640,091 to Pucher et al., 2,667,527 to Pucher and Reissue 23,883 to Chubb were respectively offered and received in evidence without objection as Trial Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and are filed herewith. 5. Defendant admitted that the articles identified as Trial Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 offered and received in evidence without objection and filed herewith were procured by and delivered to the defendant within the six-year period next preceding the filing of the petition. 6. Defendant admitted that U.S. Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 was granted by the Commissioner of Patents to Bert N. Adams on June 22, 1943. Stipulated Testimony 7. The parties stipulated that the record evidences de- livery by Bert N. Adams of battery cells made by him to the {fol. x] U.S. peas “ee een at Fort Monmouth, N,.J.,-as-follows:—— steht Date No. of Cells Delivered January 26, 1942 1 cell February 9, 1942 2 cells March 26, 1942 10 cells June 22, 1948 . 1 cell Waiver of Certification 8. The parties agreed that uncertified copies of United States and foreign letters patent and publications may be offered in evidence by either party with full force and effect of certified copies, and that said uncertified copies may be considered as having been filed, granted or published on the dates and at the places appearing upon them, and the names of the author and publisher appearing on such publications shall be accepted as correct, subject to cor- rection by the production of originals or certified copies. The parties further agreed that uncertified copies of draw- ings, correspondence, and other documentary evidence, agreed to by counsel, may be offered in evidence by either party with the full force and effect of certified copies, sub- ject to correction if error be shown to appear. 11 Dates of Invention Asserted by Plaintiffs: 9. Defendant has requested that plaintiffs make of [fol. y] record for the purposes of this case the dates of invention upon which plaintiffs will rely. Plaintiffs state that they will rely on a date no earlier than September, 1939 for conceptioa and on a dete no earlier than March, 1940 for reduction to practice of the invention claimed in the — in suit. Exhibits Received 10. A soft copy of U. S. Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 was offered and received in evidence without objection as Trial Exhibit 10, and is filed herewith. 11. A certified copy of the file wrapper of U. S. Patent No. 2,322,210 was offered and received in evidence with- out objection as Trial Exhibit 11, and is filed herewith. 12. The parties stipulated that each of the documents offered and received in evidence without objection as Trial Exhibit 12, filed herewith, which are the documents 1961 pursuant to the Stipulation filed herein on February 17, 1961 is an accurate copy of a genuine original and if the document is a letter, it is further stipulated that such was written by or for the person, department or organiza- tion whose name or identification appears thereon as the author thereof, and was sent to and received by the per- son, department, or organization indicated thereon as the addressee thereof, on or about the date appearing on the [fol. z] document; and that the ‘‘ William Shorr’’ whose name appears in certain of these documents was employed by the defendant at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, on the dates indicated on the documents on which his signature ap- pears. /s/ John A. Reilly, Attorney for Plaintiffs, 165 Broadway, New York 6, New York. Dated: June 8, 1961 /s/ William H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney General. Dated June 8, 1961 /s/ Paul F. Arseneau, Attorney, Dept. of Justice. Dated June 8, 1961 ‘12 {fol. aa] In THe Unrrep States Court or CLarms No. 163-60 Bert N. Apams, et al vs. Tue Unrrep States Washington, D. C., Monday, July 10, 1961, thru Friday, July 14, 1961. Master InpEx Witnesses: Direct Cross Redirect. Recross Bert N. Adams.......... 31 121 137 Emma Adams........... 138 a 423 Charles L. Mantell....... 145 402 457 Howard Raymond Knapp. 461 507 oe Joseph C. White......... 572 636 642 Charles L. Mantell (Re- GIN a Tas ieee ss cus 645 647 Exuisits Trial For Id In Evi 14 = Stipulation of July 6, 1961 with enclo- , sures together with Patent Office cer- tification and instruments of writing as received May 26, 1961............... 3 3 18 ‘Burgess battery..................... 4 ee 19 Letter accompanying Burgess battery dated July 7,.1961................5.. 4 20 ~=— Letter dated June 22, 1961 from Depart- ment of Justice to Commissioner Lane.. ... 11 Commissioner’s: 3 Certified copy from the General Ac- counting Office of Contract NOBs 20600 between USA and Thomas A. Edison, Inc., Primary Battery Division........ ... 120 ee a ee 13 ExHIsIts Commissioner’s: ; [fol. bb] Trial For Id In Evi 4 Folder entitled ‘‘Defendant’s Answer and Response to Paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Stipulation Filed on February 17, WE vine gs creado Chia eee BS” 120 Plaintiff’s: 1 Two sheets of invoice headed ‘Date Shipped 2-2-40 From Midland, Michi- gan, in re Dow Metal M Sheets CP Of tL. ... 2 ee 38 39 2 Two page document the first of which shows a curve and the second of which states ‘Summary of Test of Original Cell August 29, 1940”. 45 183 3 One-page document headed “nN, Y, March 13-14, 1941 Capacity Test of Se eins étiechs sh Riiwele ohn ss 48 4 Physical exhibit, being glass jar, dated November 21, 1941, with magnesium anode and cathode of cuprous chloride, blended with carbon................. me 52 5 Physical exhibit, being a tubular object about four inches long............... 53 6 Physical exhibit, being a cylindrical object with two wires attached........ 53 56 7 Physical exhibit, being made of glass with a label on it dated 1943.. 53 56 8 Physical exhibit, being a rectangular Es Netsiceihih Lenin matin diditiatd bitenes 54 56 9 Physical exhibit, being plasticcylinder.. 55 56 i4 ExuHIBITs Plaintiff’s: Trial For Id In Evi 10 Five’ page document consisting of a letter of March 4, 1941 from Bert Adams to National Battery Company together with four other sheets consist- ing respectively of sheets entitled ‘“‘Neu- tro Cecil Characteristics,’ ‘‘Graph,”’ [fol. ce] “The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell” and notes appearing in handwriting on back of page 4 Five-page document, the first page of which is entitled ‘Possibilities of the Neutro Cell.” the second and third pages ~ entitled ‘“Neutro Cell Characteristics,”’ fourth page entitled “Formula for Com- puting Capacity by Weight and Surface Exposed,” and the fifth sheet showing “Capacity—Linear Potential—Small Document consisting of four pages the first page of which is a letter dated April 3, 1941 to Thomas A. Edison, Inc., together with letter dated April 17, 1941 from Thomas A. Edison, to Bert Adams, plus two graphs Telephone Message from Dodge Hotel dated January 22, 1942 Document entitled ‘Adams Neutro Cell,” consisting of one page, and signed _ by Bert Adams, heretofore marked for identification One-page document showing graph and showing test of high-temperature cell for U. S. Signal Corps, dated May 16, Plaintiff’s : Trial Pages 701 through 704 inclusive from the August 1950 issue of Electrical Engineering, containing article entitied “Special Purpose Batteries,’ by Adolph - Fischbach Sheet entitled Instruction Sheet for Testing Adams Neutro Cell, dated July Burgess Battery Company brochure. . . Five-page document headed ‘‘Ray-O- Vac Engineering Bulletin,” on charac- teristics of the magnesium cuprous chlo- ride battery [fol. dd] 20 21 Life jacket together with battery Jar of cuprous chloride 22-25 Four sheets of paper to which was attached copper screens, showing re- spectively weight of 2.7 grams, 3.85 grams, 3.7 grams and 2.9 grams, marked respectively 26-29 Sheets headed “CuCL Pasted Type, with weight of paste 3.1 grams, 2.9 grams, 3.0 grams and 3.4 grams,” re- spectively Sheet headed ‘‘CuCL Pasted Type with screen attached, showing weight of paste 3.8 grams” Sheet headed ‘‘CuCL Pasted Type, with Screen attached, showing weight of paste Di meee o.oo. 6 KE SEH EIS ES Sheet headed ““CuCL Pasted Type, with screen attached, showing weight of paste 3.4 grams” Sheet headed ‘““‘CuCl Pasted Type with screen attached, showing weight of paste For Id In Evi 16 EXHIBITS Plaintiff’s: Trial For Id In Evi 34 See Comm. 35 The notes referred to heretofore by the witness which were being used in the preparation of the chart on the black- RS Cy a Ue eaetine ie ie ee ees 285 36-1 Chart drawn by the witness with three 36-2 headings, ‘‘Adams, Fischbach, Chubb, Pucher patents and Ray-O-Vac’’...... ei 294 37 Pages 202C 203C and 204C from the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Asmat VOOR ais 8 ER. Bie oe 302 38 One-page chart headed Cell No. 10.... ... 343 39 Photostat consisting of pages 528 through 545 from paper entitled ‘“‘Char- acteristics of the Silver Chloride-Mag- nesium Water Activated Battery,” by J. B. Mullen and P. L. Howard. ..... ee 380 40 Patent No. 2,817,697 to M. F. Chubb dated December 24, 1957............. bites 401 [fol. ee] 41 Patent No. 2,745,983, to M. F. Chubb, dated May 15, 1956................. ad 401 42 Pages 1, 2 and 3 together with cover page and preface page of an article en- titled ‘Primary Batteries,” by George Wee WI ora ees sil ee es. pat: ae 43 Page 129 and 130 from Aviation Week for July 11, 1960, entitled — p= ae ae a ee ee Le 642 Defendant’s: 1 Elementary Treatise on Batteries, Niau- det (1880), Cover sheet, Page ix, pages 900-200 oss — 633 2 U.S. Patent No. 282,634 to Hayes CRE & FPG ca eee aia aidan sete 633 Exuisits Defendant’s: : Trial 3 Galvanic Batteries, Bottone, (1902) Cover sheet, Pages 172-177........... 4 Primary Batteries, Carhart (1891) Cover sheet, pages 62-65............. 5 U.S. Patent No. 405,196—Barrett COONS ix ck dekh eae ws KS 6 US. Patent No. 457,116—Hard (1891). 7 U.S. Patent No. 454,598—Hathaway (RBOR). | sot. iciendeeahiedposiel sus 8 U.S. Patent No. 184,932—Vantenac... 9 U.S. Patent No. 434,593—Fink (1890). . 10 U.S. Patent No. 512,055—Pearson (IRDRD. . as O bP Sei > 42 Q. You tried those? | A. Yes, sir, I tried those. [fol. 37] Q. Why did you select cuprous chloride in pref- erence to silver or gold chloride? A. Because it is cheaper and has the same effect. ‘. Mr. Adams, when did you come up with the first opera- tive battery which had these three materials that we have previously mentioned, namely, a magnesium anode, @ cu- prous chloride cathode, and activated by water? A. In the summer of 1939. Q. How do you remember that it was in the summer of 19391 A. The war had broken out then. Q. Which war? A. The Second World War between Germany and France. At that time we were not in it. Q. Did you continue experimenting later on or after this with your battery? A. I did. Q. Mr. Adams, I will hand you two documents, one being a duplicate of the other, which I would like to have marked for identification. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, do we continue with the Trial Exhibit numbers or start with regular numbers? Commissioner Lane: I think we better mark them as [fol. 38] Plaintiffs exhibits. (Two sheets of invoice headed “Date Shipped 2-2-40 From Midland, Michigan, in re Dow Metal M Sheets CP .040” and .020” was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 for identification and ask you if you received the invoices that you have be- fore you? A. I did. Q. When did you receive these invoices? A. February 2, 1940. Q. On or about that date? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did you receive this invoice? A. With several sheets of magnesium. Q. From whom did you receive it? A. From Dow Chemical Company. Orrers 1n EvIpENCE Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I ask that this exhibit be in- troduced into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1. Commissioner Lane: Any objection, Mr. Arseneau? Mr. Arseneau: No objection. Commissioner Lane: It is received in evidence as Plain- tiffs’ Exhibit No. 1. {fol. 39] (The document heretofore marked for identifi- cation Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr Adams, referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1, what was this an invoice for? A. For sheets of magnesium. Q. Why did you want magnesium on or about February 1940? A Because I had used all the magnesium and I had to buy some more in 1940 to make batteries. Q. Did you make subsequent purchases of magnesium? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Adams, did you find the batteries that you made back in the late summer of 1939 completely satisfactory? . No, I did not. What did you find that was unsatisfactory? . The current was low. Did you experiment to try to improve this condition? IT did. . What did you do? . Well, through an accident I found a catalyst carbon. . How did this accident occur? . I was smoking a cigarette and I put the cuprous chloride in a crucible, and the ashes fell in. In those days, {fol. 40] not having any place where I could throw the mix away, I just cooked it or blended it and made a battery with the cathode, with the cuprous chloride, and found that that >O PO rOPop 44 had current, large current. I tested it and it had large eur- rent. Q. When did this incident occur, Mr. Adams? Do you recall? A. This incident occurred around the end of 1939. Q. Do you recall where you were living at the time when this incident occurred? A. With Shulens. Q. Do you recall when you moved to the home of the Shulens or to the house owned by the Shulens? A. That was roughly in the summer of 1939, and to December 1, 1939. That is to the best of my recollection. I may be wrong on the year. Dates are difficult. Q. Mr. Adams, you say that you dropped some cigarette ash into a crucible in which you were cooking some cuprous chloride? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you use the cuprous chloride which you were cooking, into which the ash fell, to make an electrode? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you use this electrode in one of your batteries? A. Yes. [fol. 41] Q. Did you make an operable battery with this contaminated electrode? A. Yes. Q. Did you test this battery? A. Yes. Q. What were the results of the test? A. I had a good battery. I had a battery which lit the bulb. Q. Did you notice any other results obtained from this battery? A. The linear potential. Q. What do you mean by that? A. The potential was flat. In other words, you have a curve that goes like so (indicating), and then it comes down at the bottom. We call it a flat curve. Q. What is linear potential? A. Linear potential is a potential that remains straight under load. Q. Mr. Adams, after you made this battery with the contaminated electrode containing carbon, what did you do next? 45 A. I started thinking what had happened, and the only reason I could give was that the carbon must be a good thing in it, and I went out and bought charcoal, and I got [fol. 42] pieces of hard coal—we used both—and I got metallurgical coal, and I tried powdered graphite and I found out regardless of the type—and also sugar, and I put in sugar, which is a hydro-carbon, and I found out that the carbon is the catalyst that gave me the current. Q. Did you make electrodes out of all these various kinds of carbons? . Yes, sir, I did. . Did you put them into batteries? Yes. . Did you test them? Yes. What were the results? . The results were that all came out the same. Were they good or bad? . They were good batteries. . Mr. Adams, I give you two pieces of paper. The first piece contains some handwritten notes, with some figures and a graph, and the second page is typewritten, containing a handwritten notation showing the date August 29, 1940. Do you recognize these papers? A. I do. Q. Is the handwriting and are the figures and the graphs on the first page in your handwriting? [fol. 43] A. It is. Q. Is the handwriting that shows the date August 29, 1940, on the second page, in your handwriting? A. It is. Q. Was the second page typewritten by you? A. Yes. Q. I note on the first page, Mr. Adams, that there are some dates, August 26—and I am referring to the upper right-hand corner—and below that August 27, and then in the middle of the graph it shows August 28th. What year do those August dates refer to? A. 1940. Q. Why do you say that, Mr. Adams? . A. Because I recall it, and the second page was typed at that time, and it states so. rOrOrPOopop © 46 Q. In other words, Mr. Adams, did you type the two pages and then sign it? A. Yes, sir. Q. With the date, after you had typed it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: I would like to offer into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 the graph and the typewritten page which the witness referred to. Mr. Arseneau: Your Honor, I would like to object to this as [fol. 44] being self-serving and not proved. The graph sheet has no year but only the month, and the sheet which has the year, or supplies the year, is partially typewritten and partially handwritten. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I think the witness testified to the fact that the August 26, 27 and 28 dates which appear on the first page are 1940, and that sheet 2 is only a sum- mary, which you will see very clearly, Your Honor, where the time and date of water added to the battery was 8:15 p-m., August 26, 1940, which was for the first time, Your Honor, indicated on sheet 1, and that the time of stopping current drain was at 9:30 a.m., August 29, 1940, which is where the graph comes to the end at the bottom. The witness, who wrote the first page, testified that he wrote the second page on August 29th, which summarizes the graph on the first page. I do not think there is any ques- tion about that here. Commissioner Lane: Mr. Arseneau, if you like, you may reserve further objection until you have had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Adams. Mr. Arseneau: Thank you, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: It will be marked Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 2 for identification at this time, and I will rule on its admissibility after cross-examination. [{fol. 45] (Two-page document the first of which shows a curve and the second of which states “Summary of Test of Original Cell August 29, 1940,” marked for identi- fication as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, what is shown on page 1 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2, which is the document containing the graph? A. A curve which shows the potential, the various loads. 47 The top one is the potential of the battery open circuit, and the other is the potential of the center with the two- volt load, and that shows the characteristic of the bulb which I used as lead. Q. What kind of a battery does this graph represent? A. A battery made of magnesium anode and a cuprous chloride cathode, blended with carbon and a water electro- lyte. Q. When did you add the water electrolyte to this battery? A. At the time of activation. It was at 8:15 p.m. on August 26, 1940. Q. Did you continue to make readings during August 26, 19402 A. Yes, as stated on this curve. Q. What are you pointing to there, Mr. Adams? [fol. 46] A. At the time, on August 26th and on August 27th and on August 28th. Q. Do we go into August 29th? Did this continue on into August 29th? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you refer to page 2 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 for identification? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did this battery operate, Mr. Adams? A. Roughly 34 hours. Q. In view of the objection of Mr. Arseneau, would you repeat what page 2 is with reference to page 1? A. Page 2 is a summary of page 1. Q. Mr. Adams, I would like to refer you again to this exhibit, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 for “identification. Was this one of your earlier batteries? A. Yes, sir. . You said this battery contained a cuprous chloride cathode which had carbon in it? A. Right. Q. Was that one of the first of such batteries? A. Yes, sir. _ Q. Earlier you said that this addition of carbon which you accidentally made when smoking a cigarette took place [fol. 47] in the year 1939? A. Yes, sir. Q. I would like to have you refresh your recollection, in 48 view .of this document which is before you, and I ask you whether it was in |e year 1939 or 1940 that the accident happened? A. It was either late—when I said the first time, it was either late 1939 or in 1940. It is difficult for me to pinpoint the exact time within those dates. Q. Mr. Adams, did you continue experimenting with your battery after August 29, 1940? A. I did. Q. Did you experiment with regard to chemicals or any- thing of that kind to increase the speed of activatica of the battery? A. I did. Q. What did you do in this respect? A. I added magnesium chloride. Q. And did you test the batteries in which you had added the magnesium chloride? A Yes. Ys What were the results? A. I gained a slight bit in the activation time. Q. Did you do any experiments with regard to contami- [fol. 48] nation of the electrodes? A. Yes. Q..What were the results of your experiments? A. I added magnesium sulphate in that case and kept the electrodes cleaner. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a document entitled “N.Y. March 13-14 1941.” Do you vecognize this document? A. Yes, I typed it. Q. You typed this document? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you type the information and draw the graph contained thereon? A. Yes. Q. Did you do it on or about the date March 13-14, 1941? A. Yes. Mr. Huettner: I offer this document into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3. Commissioner Lane: Any objection, Mr. Arseneau? Mr. Arseneau: No, sir. Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3 is received. 49 (One-page document headed “N.Y. March 13-14 1941 Capacity Test of Neutro Cell” was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3.) [fol. 49] By Mr. Huettner: Q. I direct you attention, Mr. Adams, to the bottom of this document. Does this document show the addition that you just mentioned of magnesium sulphate and magnesium chloride? A. Yes. Q. Did this cell operate properly? A. Yes. Q. Was it a good cell? _ A. Yes. Q. I note on the top, Mr. Adams, that vou say “Neutro Cell.” What is a “Neutro Cell”? A. It is the name I gave to this particular cell made of magnesium, cuprous chloride, carbon and water. Q. In other words, that is the name you gave to identify vour cell? A. To identify the cell which had a practically neutral electrolyte. Q. Whenever we see the word “Neutro” anywhere in th» documents, you are referring to a cell which has a mag- nesium anode, a cuprous chloride cathode and activated by water? A. That is correct. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a physical object which looks like a glass jar, having a black-rimmed seal at the top, with [fol. 50] two pieces of metal protruding out of the top. The glass contains a faded brown label which is dated at the bottom either May or November—it is undistinguishable— 21, 1941. Do you recognize this cell? . Yes, sir, it is one of my early cells. What is the anode made of? . Magnesium. What is the cathode made of? . Cuprous chloride, blended with carbon. . What was the electrolyte used in this cell? . Water. . Is it a used cell and has it been spent? . This has been spent. >O>POProOror 50 Q. Is this cell similar to the cells which we have been dis- cussing up to this time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make this cell, Mr. Adams? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you make it on or about the date on this label? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: I offer this cell in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Arseneau: Excuse me. Did you refer to the label? Mr. Huettner: On the very bottom line is the date which [fol. 51] I gave as November 21, 1941. Mr. Wohlfert: If Your Honor please, I think at this point it might be well to make a general objection to the nature of the questions asked by counsel for the Plaintiffs. I note that almost every question has been answered by yes or no, in view of the leading nature of the questions. I think the wit- ness should identify these exhibits and tell us what they are and not have counsel prompt him with leading questions. Mr. Reilly: May I interject? I would like to have proper procedure followed by Defendant’s counsel. You will ob- serve that on our side one counsel has conducted the exami- nation, and I have not interjected up to this point. I think we better make up our minds who is going to object, and either one or the other do it, and not both. Commissioner Lane: Will you bear in mind the objection of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Wohlfert? Mr. Wohlfert: Yes, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: Proceed. Mr. Huettner: My last request was that this battery he introduced into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Arseneau: I object, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: It will be marked and received. [fol. 52] (Physical exhibit, being glass jar, dated Novem- ber 21, 1941, with magnesium anode and cathode of cuprous chloride, blended with carbon, was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4.) 51 By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, did you make other shapes of your neutro cell? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, I place before you five objects, starting from left to right, and would you identify those objects? A. These are cells that I made in the following rotation, yes, sir. (Indicating) Mr. Huettner: The witness has placed the cells in a cer- tain order. By Mr. Huettner: Q. When you say “in the following rotation,” would you please explain that? A. This was made, I am sure, after this date. (Indi- cating) Mr. Huettner: When the witness is saying “this,” he is pointing to a tubular object about four inches long, and I would like to have this marked for identification so that we will know what we are talking about. It will be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5 for identification. [fol. 53] (Physical exhibit, being a tubular object about four inches long, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ ixhibit No. 5.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Proceed, Mr. Adams. A. This was made on the request of the Signal Corps, which wanted a Type D, which denotes the size of the bat- tery. (Indicating) Mr. Huettner: The witness just picked up another cylin- drical object which has two wires attached to it, and I would like to have that marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 for identification. (Physical exhibit, being a cylindrical object with two wires attached was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6.) 52 The Witness: This one with a high-amperage battery gave 1.2 amperes at 1.5 volts. (Indicating) Mr. Huettner: The witness has just pick up a glass object which has a label on it, and I would like to have this marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7. (Physical exhibit, being made of glass with a label on it dated 1943 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 7.) [fol. 54] By Mr. Huettner: Q. Does the label on that battery have a date? A. It has 1943 for this particular battery, but they were made before this date. Q. The next object, Mr. Adams? A. The next one is for extremely high amperage, with the thought of missiles in mind. This was flat. There are three cells in series, capable of delivering 14 amperes in a time of four minutes at 1.1 volts (indicating). Mr. Huettner: The witness was just talking about a rec- tangular-shaped article which I would like to have marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8 for identification. (Physical exhibit, being a rectangular object, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Proceed. A. The next one is an improved design of a venting sys- tem for use in aircraft, and it has a novel type valve. Q. The Plaintiff is now discussing a plastic cvlinder article, which I would like to have marked Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 9 for identification. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. [fol. 55] (Physical exliibit, being plastic cylinder, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Who made the cells in front of you, Mr. Adams? A. I made all these cells. Q. Approximately when did you make the cells marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, the ones on your right? A. They were made early in 1942. Q. When did you make cells marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6, which is the next one? A. They were made at approximately the same time. Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7? A. These were also made at that time for experimenta- tion on high amperage. . And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8? A. These were made probably in the early part of 1943. . And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9? . These were made just about the same time. . Did you deliver any one of these cells to the Army? . This type, the first and second. . You are talking about Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 5 and . Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 and 8 and 9 were . 56] delivered to Fort Monmouth. Mr. Huettner: I would like to introduce into evidence physical Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: The will be received in evidence, and they will be marked during the recess. (The physical exhibits heretofor marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were received in evidence. ) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, after you started making samples of your neutro cell, what did you do with it? A. What do you mean, what did I do with it? Q. Did you try to capitalize on the cell? A. Yes, I tried to interest the Government in it. Q. Did vou try to interest anybody else, any private con- cerns? 54 A. And private concerns, Edison and Nationa] Carbon and National Battery Company. Q. National Battery Company? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: I have just handed thé witness four pages, or actually five pages of material, and I would like to have them marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10. [fol. 57] Page 1 is a document having a date March 4, 1941. Page 2 is a document entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics.” Page 3 is a graph, the top of which is cut off at the corner, and page 4 is entitled “The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell,” and page 5 consists of some handwritten notes which appear on the back of page 4, which the witness has. The witness has the originals. (Five-page document consisting of a letter of March 4, 1941 from Bert Adams to National Battery Company to- gether with four other sheets consisting respectively of sheets entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics” “Graph” “The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell” and notes appearing in handwriting on back of page 4, were collectively marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, do you recognize the first page of Plain- tiffs Exhibit No. 10? A. Yes. Q. What is it? A. It is a letter I wrote to the National Battery Com- panv with reference to seeing if they had any interest in our kind of battery. The other papers are the enclosures that I sent with this letter. so that they would have information as to the char- [fol. 58] acteristics and the possibilities of it. Q. Who made the second page of this document? A. I did I typed it. Q. Who made the graph on page 3? A. I did. (). Who typed page 4 entitled “The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell”? A. I did. 55 Q. Who made the handwritten notes on the back of page 5? A. That is my handwriting. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I would like to introduce the five pages marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10 into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10. Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection, Your Honor, but the last sheet here shows some notes. Do you intend to refer to page 6? Mr. Huettner: I think it appears on the back. Commissioner Lane: Off the record, Mr. Reporter, please. (Discussion off the record.) Commissioner Lane: Back on the record. Mr. Arseneau: All right. Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10 will be received in evidence. {fol. 59] (The documents heretofore marked for identifi- cation as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10, were received in evi- dence. ) By Mr. Huettner: Q. What was the outcome of your letter, Mr. Adams, of March 4, 1941? A. There was no interest shown. Q. Did you get a response to this letter? A. No. Q. What did you do? A. On this particular thing? There was no interest. Then T received a letter from the National Batte~y to go to Cleve- land to their test labs, and I went there und Doctor French tested it. First he thought it was crazy, and then he put it on the test bench and checked it, and it was all right, and then I came back to New York with the battery. I did not leave it nor did I leave any information there. Q. Did you bring any information with you? A.I brought some information but no information which was vital. Mr. Huettner: I am handing the witness five pages which T would like to have marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 for identification. 56 Commissioner Lane: It may be so marked. [fol. 60] (Five-page document, the first page of which is entitled “Possibilities of the Neutro Celi,” the second and third pages entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics,” fourth page entitled “Formula for Computing Capacity by Weight and Surface Exposed,” and the fifth sheet showing “Capac- ity—Linear Potential—Small Weight,” marked for identi- fication as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 11.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Do you recognize these pages, Mr. Adams? A. Yes, I do. I typed them. Q. What is the notation on page 4 of this document? A. (Reading) “This formula copied by F. H. French at Cleveland laboratories exide National Carbon Company on Aug. 22—1941 morning.” Q. Whose writing is that? A. That is my writing. Q. What does this indicate to you? A. It indicates that he had taken down, copied from this page, this information which is above it. Q. The data on that page, does it disclose the chemical compositions of your neutro cell? A. It does not. Q. What does it not disclose? A. It does not disclose the cuprous chloride or the carbon. [fol. 61] Q. How did you identify it on page 4? A. “Element X.” Q. When you went to see Mr. French, did you have these pages with vou? A. Yes. Q. You said you had something else? A. Yes, I had characteristics of the linear potential and what possible use I thought at the time could be made of the cell, and a sort of specification. Q. What was the cell like which you had with you? A. It was a cell something similar to this (indicating). Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 4. 57 By Mr. Huettner: Q. Who typed all the pages in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 for identification? A. These were all typed by me. Q. Do you recall when they were typed? A. In 1941. Mr. Huettner: I offer into evidence the five pages which have been identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 for identi- fication. Mr. Arseneau: No objection, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 will be (fol. 62] received. (The document heretofore marked for identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. im was received in evidence. ) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Did you interest anybody else in your battery, Mr. Adains? A. Yes, the Government. Q. Anybody besides the Government? A. A friend of mine, John Sandhaas, tried to find interest through the Government. I believe he wrote to Washington. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document containing five pages which is already in evidence as Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 1 to 5. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: I would like first to introduce one more document. Commissioner Lane: Proceed. By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document consisting of four pages which I would like to have marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 12 for identification. Do you recognize ages docu- ments? A. Yes. fol. 63] (Document consisting of four pages, the -first page of which is a letter dated April 3, 1941 to Thomas A. Edison, Inc., together with letter dated April 17, 1941 from 58 Thomas A. Edison to Bert Adams, plus two graphs, were collectively marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. What are these documents? A. The first one is a letter I wrote to Thomas A. Edison, addressed to Mr. Stamper, in reference to a test cell which I left on March 20, 1941, to see whether they had tested it, or what happened to it. Q. Did you write the letter on the first page of this document? A. I wrote the letter. Q. On what date? A. On April 3, 1941. Q. What is page 2 of this document, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 for identification? A. Page 2 is a letter from Mr. Patterson, Chief Engineer of Thomas A. Edison, stating that they had failed to return the graphs of voltage and current characteristic curves which I had left with him when I left the battery, or when I took my battery back which they did not test. Q. Did you receive the letter on page 2 of Plaintiffs’ [fol. 64] Exhibit No. 12 for identification? A. Sir? Q. Did you receive this letter? A. Yes, I did, and this is it. Q. What are pages 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 for identification ? A. No. 3 is the original curve I gave Edison, and so is No. 4, of similar proportion. Q. Did you make the curves shown on pages 3 and 4 of this exhibit? A. Yes. Q. Are these the curves referred to in Mr. Patterson’s letter? A. Yes. Mr. Huettner: I offer into evidence the four pages which the witness has identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12. Commissioner Lane: Any objection? Mr. Arseneau: No objection. 59 Commission Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 is received in evidence. (The document heretofore marked for identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 was received in evidence.) [fol. 65) By Mr. Huettner: Q. On your visit to the Edison Company on March 20, 1941, you indicated on page 1 making such a trip, and what did you bring with you, Mr. Adams? A. One battery. Q. Anything else? A. Those curves and the specifications. Q. Did you leave the battery with them? A. I did. Q. Did you ever disclose to them the chemical composi- tion of your battery? A. No, they did not ask for it and I did not disclose it. Q. What did they do with this battery at Edison? A. From the oral information received, they just talked it over and decided that they would not go into that type of battery, and that they were not interested in it at the time. Q. I now hand you the exhibit which we have had marked, which is Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 1 to 5, and this letter is stipulated to be a letter from Mr. Sandhaas to Mr. Charles F. Kettering, Chairman of the National Inventors Council, dated January 7, 1942. Why did Mr. Sandhaas write this letter? ([fol. 66] A. To interest the Government in tho battery. Q. Where there any enclosures with this letter? A. Yes, I had given Mr. Sandhaas the specifications and the possibilities and the curves which he later had typed. Q. Are those shown on pages 2 and 3 of this exhibit? A. Right, they are copies of the originals which I gave to Sandhaas. Q. You gave to Mr. Sandhaas the data contained on pages 2 and 3? A. Right, and also the curves. Q. And also the curves? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he re’ ved this data? A. Yes, sir. 60 Q. Did you check this data before it was sent in? A. Some of it was checked and some of it was not checked. It was too late. Q. The particular data shown on pages 2 and 3, you mean? A. Yes, sir. Q. I show you a copy of a letter which is admitted in evidence as Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 1. Do you recognize this letter, Mr. Adams? [fol. 67] A. Yes, I do. This is a copy that Sandhaas gave me after he wrote to Captain Shumaker of the Research and Development Division, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. Q. Why did Mr. Sandhaas write this letter? A. To interest the Government in this patent. Q. Were there any enclosures with this letter? A. Yes. . Q. I direct your attention to the paragraph numbered 2, and will you read it? A. The usual characteristics and curves were very similar to the ones of previous characteristics and curves of Sand- haas, and they were sent. Q. Are you talking about the previous exhibit, Trial Ex- hibit No. 15, pages 2 to 5, the enclosures? A. Yes, sir, those were sent with it. Q. I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 6 through 11. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, this is a retyped copy from the original. It was almost illegible but it is stipulated to be Trial Exhibit No. 15 and has been admitted as retyped. Commissioner Lane: All right. By Mr. Huettner: Q. What is this letter, Mr. Adams? [fol. 68] POPOPrOoPopro>lopopop | 63 Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 13 is received. (Telephone Message from Dodge Hotel dated January 22, 1942 was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 13.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Now, Mr. Adams, when you were here in Washington during the period January 21, 1942 to January 24, 1942, you fol. 72] stated that you met with a Mr. Irland and who else? A. Captain Shumaker. Q. Anybody else? A. I don’t recall the other names. Q. What did you bring with you when you came to Wash- ington on this trip? A. One battery and a set of curves and a set of char- acteristics. Q. Similar to the ones that were furnished to the Navy? A. Yes, sir. Q. In other words, more copies? A. Yes. Q. What did you disclose to the Government personnel that you talked to while in Washington? A. I disclosed the entire chemical reaction. I told them everything I knew at the time. I told them the battery could be made of silver and gold chloride. Q. Where did you disclose this? A. At the Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, at the conference. Q. How many people were in that conference? A. Roughly one dozen, I would say. Q. To you knowledge, whom did they represent? A. They represented the Government, the Navy. They were Navy specialized personnel, such as chemists ‘and (fol. 73] electronizs people, and the submarine people were there, too. Q. Did you disclose this to them? A. Yes, sir, it was necessary, and I disclosed the entire thing so that they could use it in case they needed it for armaments. Q. What was the outcome of your visit here in Washing- ton in January 1942? A. I was directed to go to Fort Monmouth, and they 64 would communicate at the time to tell them that I was com- ing there with this battery. Commissioner Lane: Our recess for lunch is due at any time when you come to a good stopping point. Are you jumping from Washington to Fort Monmouth now? Mr. Huettner: I think this would be a good stopping point. Commissioner Lane. It is 12:35. Do you want to come back at 2:00 o’clock? Is that long enough? Mr. Huettner: Very good. Commissioner Lane: We will recess now until 2 :00 o’clock. (Whereupon, at 12:35 o’clock p.m., a recess was taken until 2:00 o’clock p.m.) [fol.74] ArrerNoon Session (2:00 o’clock p.m.) Commissioner Lane: Before we start, I have received from Defendant’s counsel, in a letter dated today, a certified copy of the contract which was referred to this morning, NObs 20600, with the request that it be received as a Com- missioner’s exhibit. Do the Plaintiffs have any objection to that? Mr. Reilly: We would like to have an opportunity to look at the exhibit, if we may, and could I answer tomorrow as to both of the documents? Commissioner Lane: Yes, sir. Do you have copies of the contract and of Defendant’s Answer? Mr. Reilly: I have probably got some copies, such as they are, and we can try to decipher them today. Commissioner Lane: Very well. Mr. Reilly: I might say by looking at this, that sometimes the photostats turn out better. Commissioner Lane: You may proceed. 65 Wuerevupon Bert N. Apams, the witness on the stand at the taking of the recess, resumed the stand and testified fur- ther on behalf of the Plaintiffs, as follows: fol. 75] Direct examination (resumed) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, when you were in Washington from Janu- ary 21, 1942 to January 24, 1942, did you visit any other Government agencies than the Bureau of Ordnance? A. The Naval Research and the Bureau of Ships. Q. What did you do when you visited the Bureau of Naval Research and the Bureau of Ships? A. We discussed the chemical composition of the cells and their possible use to the military. Q. What cells are you referring to? A. To the cuprous chloride and magnesium cells. Q. Is the one before you similar to the one you were demonstrating with the Government, and are you referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the outcome of your visit to Washington? A. I was directed to Fort Monmouth. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 1, to which you referred earlier, and ask you if there is any entry there which would be helpful with respect to this matter? A. Yes, on January 21, 1942, it states: “Trip to Washington from 1-21-42 to 1-24-42 (Navy).” [fol. 76] Q. What does that indicate to you? A. It indicates taking a trip to Washington. Q. To where? A. To Washington, to the Navy. Q. Would you read the next entry? A. The next entry reads: “January 26—1942 Trip to Ft. Monmouth for Army tests. Left 1 cell.” Q. What does that indicate to you, Mr. Adams? A. That I went to Fort Monmouth from Washington. 66 Q. Mr. Adams, I show you Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 3. Do you recognize this document? A. Yes. Q. What is it, Mr. Adams? A. It is a page from a notebook that I had at the time, the name of the director and the places where I went at Fort Monmouth, and who I talked to. Q. With whom did you talk at Fort Monmouth? A. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Daniels. Q. Anybody else? A. Doctor Payne. Q. Did you bring anything with you to Fort Monmouth on this trip? A. One cell. [fol. 77] Q. Did you bring anything else? A. A set of curves and the characteristics of the cell, and possible uses. Q. I show you Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 1 to 5, which we have already identified, the letter of Sandhaas to Mr. Kettering, which had enclosures. What is that? A. It is similar to the others. Q. It is similiar to the others? A. In fact they were copies. Q. Is there a cell before you, Mr. Adams, which you took to Fort Monmouth? A. I didn’t take it. Q. Is there a cell before you which is similar to the one you took to Fort Monmouth? A. Exactly like it. Q. You just picked up Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 41 A. Yes, sir. Q. When you brought that to Fort Monmouth, what did they do with it there, Mr. Adams? A. They were just credulous, and then they tested it, and they asked me how it was made, and I informed them. When they saw how it was made—— Q. Just what did you tell them? A. I told them cuprous chloride fused or molded or [fol. 78] blended, and they could be made out of silver chlo- ride or gold chloride, and that it had a linear potential, and I explained that I activated it by plain water, and that the anode was magnesium. 67 Q. Did the representatives at Fort Monmouth do any- thing to the battery? A. Yes, they tested it. Q. Were you present at these tests? A. At the initial test, yes. Q. Will you explain what kind of testing they did? A. They put water in it. They had some distilled water and at first I remember they thought faucet water might contain impurities which might hurt it, and I said, all right, to use the other water. In fact they put in distilled water and they handled it and they had a system where they would press a button and get the voltage reading and the amper- age, and they tested it. Q. What were the results of these tests? A. It showed a linear potential. Q. Did the voltage meter show anything? A. Yes, it showed a potential at the voltage I recom- mended, but I forget what it was now. Q. Did you see anyone else on this first trip to Fort Mon- mouth, other than Doctor Payne, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Ellis? {fol. 79] A. Yes, I saw Captain Adams, Captain Kingston. Q. Did you see any other people, on any of your official trips to Fort Monmouth? A. Yes, on later trips I met Kestler and Bedrosian. Q. Anybody else? A. Yes, there were others, Mandell, and I have a hazy idea of others. Those hurriedly are all the names. Q. Did you ever meet a Mr. Glassner? A. Yes, sir. Q. Doctor Fischbach? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter entitled Trial Exhibit No, 12, page 1. Do you recognize this letter, or what it is? A. It is a copy of the letter written by Captain Clarence Kingston as to the neutro cells, the two cells to be delivered for future tests at their laboratory at Fort Monmouth and that they were to be sent prepaid, without cost to the Government. Q. I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4. Did you deliver the cells requested by Captain Kingston? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you deliver these cells? 68 {fol. 80) A. February 2, 1942. Q. Is there an entry noted there? A. February 9, 1942. Pardon me, yes, there is an entry “Deliver 2 cells to Lab No. 2.” It says “Trip to Fort Mon- mouth to deliver 2 cells to Lab No. 2.” Q. To whom did vou deliver the cells at Fort Monmouth? A. When I went u.ere, I always delivered them to Doctor Payne or Mr. Daniels, who were together at the time. They always came in twos. They would come in the lobby to escort me in, unless it was at the Eaton Place, where they had a special secret lab, and then you were escorted by girls as a security measure. Q. Did Doctor Payne or Mr. Ellis tell you why they wanted these two additional cells? A. For test. Q. Did they say anything about the test they made on the first cell which you had delivered to them? A. No. Q. Did they say anything about your first cell? A. The only thing was that they found that it heated, or overheated, and I explained to, them at the time that it would be advantageous for cold temperatures. Q. Why would it be advantageous for cold temperatures? A. Because it would not freeze, and some did heat and [fol. 81] some did not heat, and when they overheated, they were overloaded for the area or the drain for which they were made, and I told them that for Arctic use they could be overloaded to the extent necessary to keep them from freez- ing up. Q. Is the heating of a battery an advantage or a dis- advantage? A, In that case it was an advantage. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of T'rial Exhibit No. 17, page 3. Do you reco,ynize this letter? A. Yes. Q. What is it, Mr. Adams? A. It is a letter that I wrote following the request of Mr. Ellis and Mr. Daniels, and I wrote to them that I was send- ing them two positive cathodes, one spent and the other as it came from the mold. Q. In other words, one was used and one was not used? A. Yes, sir. 69 Q: Why would a person want a spent cathode? A. ‘There might be two reasons; one was spectroscopic analysis in general conditions, and the other might be to determine the state of it afterwards in order to determine quantities of electricity or proportions. Q. Did you send these two electrodes to Fort Monmouth? A. I did. {fol. 82] Q. Did you ever hear anything about them after that? A. No. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter which is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 5; do you recognize this letter? A. Yes, Q. What is it, Mr. Adams? A. It is a copy of a letter request, a request by Captain Kingston for 20 flashlight size cells for testing at —40 F., and they wanted a quotation for a price f.o.b. Fort Mon- mouth, cash discount, time of delivery after receipt of formal order and priority required to obtain material by the (Government services. Q. What was your reaction when you received this letter, Mr. Adams? A. I could not make 20 cells, and I so informed them. I did not have the time or anything else, I told them, to make 20 cells, and I could not deliver 20 cells. It was impossible to make 20 items or to make 25 and have a certain group of tests. Q. Mr. Adams, I refer you to Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4, which we referred to earlier, which is a sheet from your ledger book, and ask you what was your next contact with Fort Monmouth? A. On March 26th. [fol. 83] Q. Was there one before that? A. There was one trip to Fort Monmouth before that. (). On what date? A. On March 13th. Q. What did you do when vou went to Fort Monmouth on this date? Do you recall? A. I told them I could not deliver the 20 cells. Q. To whom did you tell that? A. To Payne, Daniels, Kingston, and the whole group there.: 70 Q. I show you a copy of a letter, Mr. Adams, which is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 6. What is the date of this letter? A. March 13, 1942. Q. Do you recognize the letter? A. Yes. Q. What does it relate to? A. This is a letter written by Captain Kingston, and handed to me at that time, in order to repeat the order of ten and to legalize the order for ten for free, that I could deliver. Q. What did you tell Captain Kingston? A. That I could deliver the samples for free. Q. For free? A. Yes, sir. That was the conversation, to get that many {fol. 84] of the whole. . And you could not make 20 and charge them for them? . No. . Which Captain Kingston was requesting? . That is correct. Q. Did you make any batteries in reply to Captain Kings- ton’s letter of March 13, 1942? A. Yes, I did. Q. I again refer you to Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4, which is the log book or ledger book, and ask you when you next went to Fort Monmouth? A. March 26th. Q. And that was what year? A. 1942. Q. What does the entry state? A. (Reading) “Trip to Ft. Monmouth Delivery of 10 cells.” Q. What kind of cells were these which you delivered to Fort Monmouth on March 26th? A. Like No. 6. Q. They are like Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of cell is that? A. That is a neutro cell. [fol. 85] Q. Does it always have that designation? A. The neutro cell, that is the magnesium anode with eunrous chloride and carbon, and activated bv water. Q. Is that a D ceil, according to Army designation! " aeeeaamates A. This is a D cell, according to commercial designation, and the Army has a different specification. They do not use a “D” cell. Q. What people did you see at Fort Monmouth upon your visit there on March 26, 1942? A. I saw the group which I mentioned before, Doctor Payne, Daniels, Ellis, Kingston, Adams, Kestler and Fisch- bach. Q. What did you discuss with these men? A. We discussed the cell in general, and how it was made, and the theory of it. Q. Did you ask them how their tests were coming along? A. I did. Q. What did they say? A. They never gave me an answer. They were testing. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15, page 12, being a letter dated March 25, 1942. Do you recog- nize this letter? A. Yes. Q. Did you write this letter? A. I wrote the longhand copy of this letter and Sandhaas [fol. 86] wrote it on his typewriter. This was his type- writer. Q. But you wrote the letter? A. I wrote the letter. Q. What does this letter relate to, Mr. Adams? A. The specification of batteries that I had sent on to Fort Monmouth. Q. To what kind of battery does this relate? Is there one before you there? A. Yes, this one here (indicating). Q. That is the specification for P) .intiffs’ Exhibit No. 6? A. Yes, sir. In fact, it will prove out from what is here. Q. What kind of potential do you have for this battery? A. 1.6 volts and 1.4 volts, with 250 milliamperes continu- ous drain. May I say here that the heat has been specified in this particular characteristic, stating that: 71 “Maximum safe drain in milliamperes : 300 (will heat ahove 300 mill’s. drain).” 72 I recall now that they did want to know at what point it would heat for that specific portion, and it was given here, which is given in other specifications. Q. Was that within their request? [fol: 87] A. Yes, siz, it was within their request. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you copy of Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 2. Do you recognize this letter dated February 7, 1942? A. Yes, sir, this is a copy of a letter that was received by Mr. Sandhaas, and it refers to a request by the Engineering Staff of the National Inventors Council, who made a pre- liminary examination of the materials submitted, which were our curves and characteristics, but that they lacked necessary details for evaluation, and they are asking for more details. Q. Do you know who Mr. Green is? A. Yes, he is Assistant Chief Engineer of the National Inventors Council. ‘Q.. Mr. Adams, I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 13B; do you recognize this booklet? A. Yes, Q. What is it? | --A.-It-is how to proceed when you have an invention with the National Inventors Council, and how to work and pro- duce it. Q. Did you receive a copy of this booklet? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Sandhaas did. Q. Mr. Sandhaas did, and he gave it to you? ._ A. Yes, sir. [fol. 88] Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Ex- hibit No. 15, pages 13 through 18, which is a letter from Mr. Sandhaas to the National Inventors Council, dated March 28, 1942. Do you recognize this letter? A. Yes. Q. Did you have anything to do with its preparation? A. Yes, I prepared the original of Sheet 1, Sheet 2, Sheet 4, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6, and Sandhaas had them retyped on his typewriter. .Q. Is there an inaccuracy on the second page? A. Yes, there is. Q. Where does that show up, Mr. Adams? A. Where it says “Positive Plate.” First of all, it was 73 not a plate, and it is a positive cathode or positive electrode. Then further it says “Cuprous carbonate,” which it is not. Q. When you sent this to Mr. Sandhaas, what did you say it was? A. Cuprous chloride, blended with carbon. Q. Do you know why this mistake was made? A. It is a mistake meade probably—well, it was. a pro- fessor in one of our colleges that he knew, and he thought it was a cuprous carbonate. I do not want to mention the man’s name, [fol. 89] Q. Was this letter of Sandhaas, dated March 28, 1942, with the five sheets of enclosure, sent to the National Council? A. Yes, sir. Q. I hand you a copy of a letter dated April 8, 1942, addressed to Mr. Sandhaas from J. C. Green. Do 70 recog- nize this letter? A. Yes, it is a copy of the original that Mr. Sandhaas gave me, and I copied it and kept it in my files. Q. What goes that letter advise you? A. It states that the National Inventors Council have received this infermation that Sandhaas mailed to them, and that they wiil advise us of their findings in a few weeks, and signed by the Chief Engineer J. C. Green. Q. This letter is Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 8. What does the last sentence of the first paragraph state in relation to Mr. Green’s letter dated April 8, 1942? A. (Reading) “Please accept our thanks for the coopera- tion shown in making this information available.” Q. The last seatence in the first paragraph states what? A. (Reading) “You will be advised of their Sndhags within a few weeks.” [fol. 90) Q. I hand you a copy of a retyped letter, dated April 18, 1942, addressed to Mr. John J. Sandhaas from J.C. Green. Do you recognize this letter, Mr. Adams? A. Yes, this is a copy that I made from the original, which he gave me at the time, and I used it to copy, ana g-ve him back the original. Q. Who is “he”? A. Mr. Sandhaas gave me those originals. Q. What does this letter advise you? A, It says that they have given the information that we 74 have mailed to them to the proper authorities, and as soon as their decision becomes available, they will then inform us, Q. Will you read the last sentence of the first paragraph of this letter? A. (Reading) “This office will advise you as to their de- cision as soon as complete information becomes available.” Q. This letter which we have just been referring to is Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 9. Mr. Adams, were you ever advised by the National In- ventors Council as to any results on tests? A. No, nothing. Q. Ever? A. Never. [fol. 91] Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter which is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 7, which is dated June 4, 1942, from Mr. J. D. O’Connell, Lieutenant Colonel, Signal Corps, di- rected to the attention of Mr. Sandhaas. Do you recognize this letter? A. Yes. Q. What does this letter relate to, Mr. Adams? A. That he was advised, Colonel O’Connell was advised from the Chief that the tests were still proceeding, being conducted, and that they would require considerable time for conclusion, and that no results are available at this time, and that we will be informed as soon as they are available. That is the contents of the letter. Q. Will you read the last sentence of the second para- graph? A. (Reading) “You will be informed of the results of the Laboratory’s tests, promptly upon their conclusion, both as to low temperature and normal temperature applications of the Neutro Cell.” Q. Mr. Adams, did the Department of the Army ever advise you of the results of any tests that they ever made on anv of your cells? A. No, with the exception of the heat. Q. Was that a formal report, Mr. Adams? [fol. 92] A. No, only oral. Q. Did the Army advise you about the operation of your cells at any time? A. No. Q. Did they ever say that any of your cells did not work! 75 A. No. Q. During this period, Mr. Adams, did you continue ex- perimenting with your neutro cell? A. I did. Q. I hand you a document dated New York, May 27, 1942. Is that your signature at the bottom of this document? . It is. . Did you type this document? . I did. Who made the drawings? . I did. On or about what date? . This was made May 27, 1942. What does this document relate to, Mr. Adams? . It shows a cell, or three cells in parallel, in one single 3 rORPOPOPO SOD Is this right? . Pardon me, no, these were in series. I see it now. . 93] They were in series, in one single case, flat cells. . Is there a cell before you which has the appearance of cells which would be covered by this document? A. Yes, sir. (Indicating) Q. You have indicated Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: I offer in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 the document entitled “Adams Neutro Cell,” dated May 27, 1942, and signed by Bert Adams. Mr. Arseneau: No objection. Commissioner Lane: It will be received. (Document entitled “Adams Nettro Cell,” consisting of one page, and signed by Bert Adams, heretofore marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 was received in evidence. ) | ee | =, =) — By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, did you give the information contained in this document to the Government? A. Yes. Q. Specifically, to the Army? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document dated May 16, 1943, 76 which is signed “Bert Adams.” Do you recognize this docu- ment? [fol. 94] A. Yes. Q. Is that your signature, Mr. Adams? A. Yes. Q. Who prepared the document? A. I did. Q. On what date? A. On May 16, 1943. Q. Why did you prepare this document, Mr. Adams? A. To show the different potentials and the amount of current between zero time and the time of the volt or point of the maximum drain position for the United States Signal Corps. These were high-temperature cells which I tested before sending the rest of the group to the Signal Corps. Q. These tests were made for and at the request of the Signal Corps? A. Yes. Mr. Huettner: I request that this document be admitted in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15. Mr. Arseneau: No objection. Commissioner Lane: Received. (One-page document showing graph and showing test of high-temperature cell for U. S. Signal Corps, dated May 16, 1943 was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15.) [fol. 95] By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, did you convey the information contained in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15 to the personnel at Fort Mon- mouth? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 5, and I refer you to the first entry and I ask you if there is in this document any information that yov ‘iad further contact with Fort Monmouth? A. Yes, January 11, trip to Fort Monmouth, and I weut at the request of the U. S. Signal Corps. Q. Whom did you see at Fort Monmouth on January 11, 1943? A. Daniels, Payne, Kingston, Kestler, Fischbach and Ellis. 77 Q. Did you bring anything with you when you went to Fort Monmouth on this date? A. Yes. Q. What did you bring with you? A. Some batteries, but how many I don’t recall. Q. How do you know you brought some batteries with vou? ’ A. Because I never went without them. I wouldn’t take the trip otherwise because I had to take off from work to gu [fol. 96] over there, and I was not paid when I didn’t work, and so I wouldn’t go unless there was a real good reason for going, bringing something, which I could not deliver any other way. Q. So every time you went to Fort Monmouth, you did that? A. Yes, sir, plus money out of my own pocket. Q. What kind of batteries were they, Mr. Adams? A. Like this (indicating). Mr. Huettner: The witness just lifted up Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 5. The Witness: I brought a few of these square ones. (Indicating) Mr. Huettner: Indicating Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8. By Mr. Huettner: Q. When you were at Fort Monmouth on January 11, 1943, did you inquire about the tests that the Government had been conducting on your batteries for almost a year? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did vou find out? A. They told me that they were getting heat, and some of them would blow up or evaporate from the sudden heat, and I explained what it was all about, and they were overloaded, and further they said the tests were not conclusive, and they would not give me any answers. [fol. 97] Q. Did you observe any tests when you went to Fort Monmouth on these various occasions? A. Sometimes I did, yes. They were on the test board. Q. Did vou ever observe the batteries overheated? A. No, that I did not. Q. During these trips to Fort Monmouth, Mr. Adams, 78 did anybody tell you that your battery had a constant poten- tial? A. Yes, they conferred with me about that. Q. Who told you? A. Both Payne and Daniels. Mr. Arseneau: I object. I want to make the same objec- tion I made this morning. I think the questions should be couched in a way that would be less leading. Mr. Huettner: I will try and do better. By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 6. Is there any indication that you had further contact with Fort Monmouth? A. Yes, on January 20th, “trip to Fort Monmouth U.S.S.C.” That is the United States Signal Corps. Q. Is there any further identification on this document! A. Further down, on May 10th it says: “Trip to Fort Monmouth.” [fol. 98] On August 4th, delivery of ten cells. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I neglected to point out that “May,” is hard to read because a hole was punched right over it, but I think it is “July 10.” Will Mr. Arseneau go along with the fact that it looks like that? Mr. Arseneau: All right. The Witness: May I say something here? Mr. Huettner: Surely. The Witness: Here where this has July 10th, a trip to Monmouth, as I recall I did not remember on August 4th the trip to Fort Monmouth, but the ten cells were another trip to Fort Monmouth. It is underneath. I trusted my memory and now it comes back to me. I did not want to write again “Fort Monmouth.” By Mr. Huettner: Q. You made two trips? A. Yes. Q. One on July 10th? A. Yes. Q. And one on August 4th? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a document, Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 5, which is a letter dated March 24, 1943. Do you {fol. 99] recognize this letter? A. Yes, it is a copy of a letter from Mr. J. C. Green to Sandhaas in relation to finding out what happened to the cell and what interest the Government was taking in it, and would appreciate some information on the present status of the battery. Q. Do you mean Mr. Green? A. He asked for this information but didn’t receive any, and they were unable to obtain any private expression of interest from the Government agency that the battery was submitted to. Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15, page 19, being a letter from Mr. Sandhaas to Mr. Green of the National Inventors Council, dated June 4, 1943. Why did Mr. Sandhaas write this letter? A. He wrote it in order to see if he could obtain priority for magnesium sheet to make other cells during the war. Q. Why did you have to go through this routine? A. Because you could not obtain magnesium without priority, from the War Production Board. Q. Was it a difficult metal to get? A. It was impossible without a priority. Q. To whom would they give priority? [fol. 100] A. To those who were experimenting in the in- terest of the war exclusively. Q. I show you copy of a letter, which is Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 8, a letter from Mr. Green to Mr. Sandhaas, in re- sponse to his letter of June 4, 1943. A. It is a letter from Mr. Green to Sandhaas, asking him to fill out the forms, and he would then take up the matter with the War Production Board, to see if they were agree- able to the release of magnesium. Q. Did you pursue this, Mr. Adams? A. I did. Q. Did you obtain magnesium? A. I did. Q. I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 17, pages 10 80 through 15. Are those the documents which led up to pro- curement of magnesium during the war? A. Yes, they are. Q. I direct your attention to the last page of this docu- ment, and request that you read it. A. (Reading) “The magnesium sheets requested will be used in preparing additional samples for the Signal Corps Laboratories at fort Monmouth, Red Bank, N. J., and for further development of the battery termed ‘Neutro Cell’ covered by United States Patent No. 2,322,210 issued June [fol. 101] 22, 1943,” by the Department of Commerce. It has their stamp on it. Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document entitled “Instruc- tion Sheet for Testing Adams Neutro Cell,” and typed on the bottom is “Bert Adams July 13, 1943.” Do you recognize this document? . Yes, I typed it. You typed this document yourself? Yes. When did you type this document? . July 13, 1943. What does this document relate to, Mr. Adams? . It is an instruction sheet for the use of that particular cell which I was using. Q. Why did yor type this sheet? A. To give it to the Signal Corps. I did not have much faith in their checking, having checked with the girl, and I felt if I gave them an instruction sheet, they would probably make a better test there. Q. Did you deliver this sheet to anybody there? A. Doctor Payne, who was always there every time I went there, and Mr. Daniels. Q. Where? [fol. 102] A. Fort Monmouth. Q. When? A. At that time. Q. Mr. Adams, is there a battery in front of you which this instruction sheet relates to? A. Yes. Q. Which battery? A. Some were this type (indicating), and some were this type here (indicating). Lopepe> $1 Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 4 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5. By Mr. Huettner: Q. What is the difference between these two types, Mr. Adams? A. The amount of material is the same but there is more water here. Q. You are pointing now to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 51 A. Yes. So if they did put a load on it, it would keep cooler and it would not have the objection of being heated, and that was the purpose of doing it this way. Q. Where did you make these batteries, Mr. Adams? A. In my home. Q. Where? A. In my cellar and in a workshop or lab. [{fol. 103] Q. Referring again to Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 6, which is the sheet from your ledger book where it has on the top 1943. You say that you mad» © trip to Fort Monmouth on July 10th and August 4, 194°" A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you bring anything with you on yur trip to Fort Monmouth on August 4, 19437 A. Ten cells for test. Q. What kind of cells were those which you brought with you? A. Some of these (indicating), and some of these (indi- eating), both of them. Mr. Huettner: The Plaintiff has just pointed to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6. By Mr. Huettner: Q. When you delivered the cells on August 4, 1943 for testing, did you inquire about the previous cells which you left? A. I did. Q. What response did you get? A. Nothing. They had not come to any conclusion and most of the time involved was spent between three or four individuals, talking about the possibility of preparing for an answer. 82 [fol. 104] Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document dated August 10, 1943, signed by V. F. Payne, Technical Adviser. Do you recognize this document? A. Yes, I do. Mr. Huettner: This is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 9, Your Honor. By Mr. Huettner: Q. What does this document indicate to you, Mr. Adams? A. That on August 10, 1943, it is an excuse, written by the War Department, so that I wouldn’t be AWOL from Sperry, since I went over to the Signal Corps, and this was to prove that I was there, and I was not just running around. Q. Did you ask Doctor Payne to write this? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you discuss anything with Doctor Payne on Au- gust 10, 1943? A. Yes, I discussed the same thing, more observations and proportions, weights, amperages and ratios and the area of batteries, weights and possible chemical reactions. Q. How about testing? A. On the testing, that would always go off on a tangent and they would give me something vague about it, and that I would know in due time. Q. What? [fol. 105] A. That I would know in due time. Q. But you never did? A. I never did. Q. Mr. Adams, did you continue experimenting with your hattery during World War II? A. I did. Q. What kind of experimental work did you direct your attention to during this period? A. I used separaters. This has a separator (indicating), and this has a plastic separator (indicating). Mr. Huettner: The witness is talking about Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9. The Witness: And I found out the ratio or the distinction between cathodes, and I made this vent valve (indicating). 83 Mr. Huettner: Plaintiff is now pointing to a little knob on the top of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9. The Witness: For aircraft, and I made some changes in case the aircraft fell in the water. By Mr. Huettner: Q. What do you mean by changes? A. After I saw what they had, if a man falls in the water and he has a dry cell, the thing you pull down goes in a raft, and he got a better one by using this type of cell. (Indicating) (fol. 106] Mr. Huettner: The witness is still talking about Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9. By Mr. Huettner: Q. Did you bring these improvements to the attention of the Government? A. Yes, sir. Q. I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 7. Does this exhibit indicate any further personal contact with the Government at Fort Monmouth? A. Yes. Q. When? A. You can hardly see it but trip to Fort Monmouth. Q. Did you talk to anybody down there? A. I talked to Doctor Payne, Mr. Daniels and Doctor Fischbach and Mr. Ellis. | Q. Did you leave anything there when you were down there? A. Yes, I left this type of cell (indicating). Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 9. That is the plastic case. By Mr. Huettner: Q. When you were down there on June 22, 1948, did you inquire about the tests which were made on all the previous cells that you had submitted to them? [fol. 107] A. Yes. Q. What were the results? 84 A. That they had no answer yet. Q. Do you know a Mr. De Palma? A. Yes, I do. He is a friend of mine. Q. I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 4. Do you recognize this letter? A. Yes.» °s is a copy of a letter that De Palma sent to Doctor Fischbach. Q. At whose request did Mr. De Palma send this letter? A. At mine, after we found out that the battery had been copied. Q. In an article, Mr. Adams? A. Yes, sir. Q. I show you a copy of Electrical Engineering, August 1950, pages 100 through 104. A. This is the article that initiated the sending of that letter. Q. Who is the author of this article? A. Adolph Fischbach. Q. He is the same Fischbach that is mentioned at least in your notes, Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 7, with regard to your visit of June 22, 1948? A. Yes. [fol. 108] Q. The same Fischbach? A. Yes. Q. How long was he at Fort Monmouth, to your knowl- edge? A. I don’t know. I couldn’t answer that question. Q. When did you first run across Mr. Fischbach? A. Earlier than that but I could not specify, and I would not attempt to say the date because I don’t know. Q. Now after vou had Mr. De Palma send this letter, which is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 4, did you or Mr. De Palma ever get a response from Mr. Fischbach? A. No, we never did. Mr, Huettner: | would like to introduce into evidence the article about which the witness has testified, which stimu- lated the writing of Mr. De Palma’s letter. It is from Elec- trical Engineering, and it is entitled “Special Purpose Batteries” by Adolph Fischbach, August 1950, pages 701 to 704 inclusive. It will be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Arseneau: May I ask a question? There was an in- 85 struction sheet. I may have missed it. J did not think it was formally offered. Commissioner Lane: I do not think so. Mr. Huettner: I would like to introduce as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17 the Instruction Sheet for Testing Adams Neutro Cell, dated July 13, 1943. [fol. 109] Mr. Arseneau: What number is that? Mr. Huettner: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17. Commissioner Lane: It will be received in evidence. (Sheet entitled Instruction Sheet for Testing Adains Neutro Cell, dated July 13, 1943 was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17.) Mr. Huettner: is there any objection to Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 16? Mr. Arseneau: Is 16 the Electrical Engineering magazine article? Mr. Huettner: Yes, sir. Mr. Arseneau: No objection. Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16 is also received in evidence. (Pages 701 through 704 inclusive from the August 1950 issue of Electrical Engineering, containing article entitled Special Purpose Batteries, by Adolph Fischbach, received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. When did you first find out that somebody was—— Commissioner Lane: Do you want to have a ten-minute recess before you proceed? Mr. Huettner: All right. (Short recess.) [fol. 110] Commissioner Lane: You may continue, Mr. Huettner. By Mr. Huettner: Q. Mr. Adams, when did you first find out anyone was manufacturing a water-activated magnesium battery? A. About 1955. 86 Q. Did you obtain any material relating to these batteries? A. Yes. Q. What kind of battery was it? A. It was a battery made of a sheet of magnesium, which was wrapped around cuprous chloride cathodes. Q. Did you obtain any written material? First, who was the manufacturer of the battery in question? A. Burgess. Q. Did you obtain any written material on it? ~ i oer Q. 1 hand you a brochure from the Burgess Battery Com- pany, and ask you if this is the written material that you obtained about the battery which you were speaking of? A. Yes. Mr. Huettner: I would like to introduce in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 18 the Burgess Battery Company brochure and the basic design of Burgess reserve type power units. [fol. 111] Is there any objection to this exhibit? Mr. Arseneau: Yes, I do object to it for this reason: If the exhibit is being placed in evidence as to the facts stated therein, I object, because it is hearsay so far as I am concerned. In other words, if the recitals in these para- graphs are going to be used as evidence as to what Burgess was actually doing in building this, I object. There was no copyright certificate for instance. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I am not relying on any dates in it other than the one testified to by Mr. Adams, that he received this brochure some time in late 1955, and I don’t know when it was published. We don’t care when it was published. The first time Mr. Adams saw it was in 1955, and he has testified to that. I would also like to call attention to Paragraph 8 of the stipulation entered into by the parties on June 8, 1961, where it states that publications may be presented into evi- dence without certification. I believe that this publication falls within the terms of that paragraph. Commissioner Lane: As I understand it, this Burgess brochure and data sheet is being offered only as evidence of what Mr. Adams received some time in 1955? 87 Mr. Huettner: As his first contact, and when he first [fol. 112] learned that water-activated batteries having magnesium in them were being made. Mr. Arseneau: May it please the Court, if that is the purpose of the offer, I have no objection, namely, if it is offered to show by the article which is introduced that this is what Burgess was publishing then. Mr. Huettner: That is our purpose. There is no question about that, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: Does the Plaintiff intend to rely on this to show what Burgess was doing as distinguished from what Mr. Adams was making? Mr. Huettner: We will rely upon this to the extent that Burgess published this, and these are what they were doing, yes. We will rely on that. We will not rely upon any date, other than the date when it first came in contact with Mr. Adams. Commissioner Lane: I am not sure that these documents carry much weight as evidence as to what Burgess was doing. It may be evidence as to what he published, but so far as being anything further than that, I have my doubts. Mr. Huettner: We agree with that, Your Honor, and un- der those conditions may this be admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 18? Commissioner Lane: It is received in evidence. [fol. 113] (Burgess Battery Company brochure was re- ceived in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 18.) By Mr. Huettner: Q. Did you receive any publication from any other manu- facturers ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I hand you a copy of a document which is entitled “Engineering Bulletin.” Is this the document which you obtained ? A. Yes, sir. Q. About when, Mr. Adams? A. About 1955. Mr. Huettner: I request that this document be introduced in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No, 19 under the same 88 conditions as set forth for in the admission of Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit No. 18. ~~ Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection to either offer as evidenticsry with respect to the date when Mr. Adams first learned of the facts stated therein. Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 19 will be received in evidence under the conditions that Plaintiffs’ counsel stated. (Five-page document headed “Ray-O-Vac Engineering Bulletin,” on characteristics of the magnesium cuprous chloride battery received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 19.) [fol. 114] By Mr. Huettner: ‘ Q. Mr. Adams, did you file a claim with the Government? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Adams, did you subsequently file this suit along with other persons? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I have no further questions of Mr. Adams on direct. CoLtLtoguy BeTwEEN Court anp CouNSEL Commissioner Lane: Mr. Arseneau, would it shorten your cross-examination if we recessed until tomorrow? Mr. Arseneau: I think it would, Your Honor. Commissioner Lane: Very well, we will recess now until 10:00 o’clock tomorrow morning. Mr. Arseneau: May I say something on the record before we recess? Commissioner Lane: Yes, sir. Mr. Arseneau: This morning I believe Mr. Reilly made reference to Defendant’s Answer in response to certain paragraphs in the Discovery Stipulation, and I believe one of the things he referred to was the fact that a lot of letters from contractors, et cetera, were blanked. As I understand the procedure, Defendant is placed under order to furnish printed copies of the letters as blanked, and turn them over to the Court. [fol. 115] I would like to suggest that I have no objection 89 to that but rather than there being embodied in the text of the reporter’s transcript, I would request that the order be typed out formally designating the material to be turned over, and also, if possible, set forth the basis. My view is that the material already turned over was done in accordance with the number of paragraphs in the stipulation, and if the letters are going to be inspected when they are turned over to the Plaintiffs’ attorney, I would like to.have the request on a formal basis. Mr. Reilly: I am not sure a reply from me is reandeed We determined this point before, Your Honor will recall, when it was ruled that Mr. Arseneau should bring this ma- terial in and turn it over to you, and I think to ask you to sit down and write some order explaining what is to be done is not a proper thing to be asked of you. I believe they should turn it over to you on the basis of statements made on the record by both counsel here and by yourself, and should do it right now. Commissioner Lane: May I ask a question, Mr. Arseneau? These documents are not to be turned over to the the Plain- tiffs. As I understood Plaintiffs’ request, it was for me to receive them, and it is for the Commissioner to decide whether or not the deletions in the fifteen pages should be [fol. 116] viewed by Plaintiffs, and when I go over the complete correspondence and I find a paragraph which I think explains some of the material already in evidence, and should be in, I wouid suggest that Defendant’s counsel put it in. Plaintiffs’ request was merely that the Commissioner go over i{ .ad determine whether or not it should be put in. Mr. Arseneau: I understand that, Your Honor, and the only question I raised was the question about my turning over this material without a formal order on the record. Mr. Reilly: There is a formal order on the record. It has been required, and that is it. Mr. Arseneau can get a typed copy of it, just as Your Honor will. I have never heard of anything more formal than a Judge’s statement on the record, and the reporter has taken it down, Mr. Arseneau. Mr. Arseneau: All right. Under those circumstances, Your Honor, I will tender to the Court at this time the originals of these letters which we obtained from my office. (Handing documents to Commissioner) 90 Commissioner Lane: I will return these to you tomorrow morning, Mr. Arseneau, without Plaintiffs having seen them and I will determine whether Trial Exhibit No. 12 is com- plete, so far as the issues now are concerned. We will now take a recess until 10:00 o’clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3:50 o’clock p.m., Monday, July 10, 1961, a recess was taken until 10:00 o’clock a.m., Tuesday, July 11, 1961.) 91 {fol.117] Transcript of Testimony for Plaintiffs (Resumed)—July 11, 1961 ffol. 118] Commissioner Lane: Pursuant to Plaintiffs re- quest made of record yesterday, the Commissioner has now examined the complete originals of the six letters from which parts are in evidence as Trial Exhibit No. 1 herein. The portion of these letters furnished by Defendant pur- suant to the first sentence of Paragraph 15 of the Stipula- tion filed’ February 17, 1961, are hereby found to fully comply with Defendant’s agreement to furnish copies of portions of letters received from contractors which describe processes of constructing cuprous-chloride batteries for Defendant. These six letters bear dates within the period November 29, 1960, and February 24, 1961. The portions of these let- ters not included in Trial Exhibit No. 1 are general com- ments of the respective authors and/or reference to various contracts. The originals of these letters are returned to Defendant’s counsel at this time. Are you ready to proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Adams, or do you have anything further, Mr. Reilly? Mr. Reilly: I have nothing further except to say that I iooked through the material that Mr. Arseneau gave us, and T checked the copies and it seems te me that he wanted this to be marked as a Trial Exhibit and there is no objection at all to any of this material. I better read them to you. I think the easiest way to [fol. 119] do it is to say that the transmittal letter will be made an exhibit, and I am filing two copies of the Defend- ant’s Answer respecting the sea water torch. It relates to that also, does it not? Mr. Arseneau: Yes, sir. Mr. Reilly: You do have an extra copy for us? Orrers IN EvipENCE Mr. Arseneau: No, but I thought they could be made and then I could offer all at once. There is one other matter I would like to mention this 92 morning. With respect to one of the matters handed in yesterday Plaintiffs’ counsel mentioned photostating six Burgess blueprints which were to be turned over, and I think the record should show those six blueprints are being turned over this morning. This is the latest materia [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0221%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.