BUFFALO SCALE CO. SCALE Co.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.
PATENTS-DECREE FOR ACCOUNTING-INJUNCTION.
Where the plaintiff's reissue was not. open to objections, and defendant's exllibit was an infringement, and none of the claims of the reissue are impeached for want of novelty, and the defendant did not acquire any right to the use of plaintiff's invention, the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory decree for an accounting, and an injunction.
James A. Allen, for plaintiff. E. G. Spmgue and E. B. Perkins, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. 1. The plaintiff's reissued patent is not open to the objection that it is for different inventions from those shown by the specifications and drawings of the original patent, or. that -it was unlawfully reissued in its present form. 2. Defendant's Exhibit C infringes all the folir claims of thereissue, and contains only a single beam, within the meaning of. that term in the reissue. 3. Defendants Exhibits D and F do not infringe any .of the 'claims of the reissue. 4. None of the claims of the reissue are successfully impeached for want of novelty, either by any of the prior patents or publica. tions, or by any of the prior structures, or by the evidence a·s to the suggestions or doings of Usher, Scoville, Linen, Civer, Bidwell, or Smith. 5. The defendant did not, by the contracts relied on, or by any relation between it and the plaintiff, acquire any title to or interest in his patent, or any right at all to make or use or vend the inventions covered by the original patent, or by the reissued patent. The plaintiff was at no time a copartner with the defendant, and' the authorities cited for the defendant do not apply to the facts of this case. 6. The plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory decree for an account,and an injunction as to structures like Exhibit C. The question of costs is reserved till the hearing on the master's report.
FEDERAL REPORTER. CBANDALL and others v. DARE.
(,Cw-cull Court, S. D. New York. November 5,1881.)
REISSUlII-IMP:ROVElllENT IN CHILDREN'S OARRIAGES.
Where the claims in controversy had been adjudicated upon in It former suit and were held in such suit to have been anticipated, the bill for an infringement will be dismissed.
P. Van Antwerp, for plaintiffs. A. v. Briesen, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on reissued letters patent No. 4,223, granted to William E. Crandall, January 3, 1871, for an "improvement in children's carriages," the original patent, No 100,121, having been granted to him, as inventor, February' 22, 1870, and reissued to him, No. 3,972, May 17, 1870. Claims I, 2, 3, and, 5 of the reissue, which, are the claims involved in this suit, were adjudicated upon by this court in Crandall v. Richardson, 8 FED. REP. 808, and those claims were held to have been anticipated. By a stipUlation between the parties to this suit the testimony on file in Orandall v. Richardson is to be considered by this court in the determination of this suit. There is other testimony in this suit. But I s:Je no ground for changing the conclusion arrived at in the former '!uit, and the bill must be dismissed, with costs.
BATE REFRIGERATING Co. v. EASTMAN.
(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York.
September li, 1881.)
Where there is so much doubt on the question of infringement as to require that the new apparatus be embraced in a new suit, the motion for an attachment will be denied.
BLATOHFORD, C. J. In view of the state of the art as shown in the prior patents, referred to on the hearing of the motion for injunction, and of the construction which Judge Nixon found to be the proper one on which to sustain the patent as against those prior patents, and of the grounds on which the motion for iujunction was granted, and of the fact that no process is claimed in the patent, but the claims are for apparatus having a specific mode of operation, and of the fact that the defendant uses new air all the time, although getting the