IlATTHEWS 'D. IRON OLAD lrIANOF'G 00.
adapted to a tubular cover of the projecting end pieces arranged sub. stantially as and for the purposes described; (2) a paper box con· structed substantially as described, with overlapping corner pieces, a.nd with overlapping end pieces partially covering the end of the box. Infringement is alleged of the first claim only. The defendants use a blank cut and creased like complainants' blank, except without any corner pieces, which they fold into box form with sides and ends and end pieces, and thus make a receptacle to hold cigarettes which is not pasted at the corners, but in which the whole end can be opened without removing the receptacle from the tubular cover. It is a loose receptacle adapted to expose the whole end while the body remains within the tubular cover. The complainants' patent is for a different thing. It is for a box in which the parts are united at the ends and sides. If made without the corner pieces it is "joined together at the corners to form the sides and ends of the box," as the pre-existing boxes are described in the specification to have been made, but has the projecting end pieces to prevent escape of the contents by accidental exposure. If made with the corner pieces it has the additional strength and rigidity which they confer upon it. No wider scope can be given to the claims in view of their terms, the descriptive position of the specifications, and the specific improvements over the existing boxes which were contemplated by the inventors. The bill is dismissed.
MATTHEWS 'D. IRON CLAD MANOP'G Co.
(Oirtnlie CtnJrt,8. D. NetI1J York.
February Il, 1884.)
PATENTS FOlt INVENTIONS-EvmENOE-JUUGMENT-BTRANGEltS TO THE BUIT.
A decree obtained by the plaintiff in an action to recover for the infringement of his patent cannot be introduced in an action against a stranger to the former suit for the purpose of prOVing acquiescnce in the plaintiff's use of the patent.
In Equity. Briesen et Steele, for complainant. Betts, Atterbury et Betts, for defendant. WALLACE, J. The defendant moves to expunge from the proofs certain decrees introduced by the complainant, obtained in aotions in which he was complainant, adjudicating the vaiidity of the patent upon whioh the present suit is brought. These decrees were obtained in suits against infringers to which the present defendant was not a party, or privy. The evidence was introduced against the defendant's objection, and is now insisted on as tending to show acquiescence in the rights of the plaintiff under his patent. If it were necessary for the oomplainant to show that he had asserted his rights v.19,no.5-21
under the patent, .before the present suit, doubtless the records would be evidenoe that he' had brought suits and prosecuted them to final judgment. They are not competent, however, as admissions of third persons, because the defendant oannot be prejudiced by suoh admissions. The effect of such deel'ees is considered by Mr. Justice NELSON in Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. 322, where he held that, although admissible upon mo,tions for a provisional injunction in which the ordinary rulesof evidence do not obtain, they are proceedings inter alios. and therefore not competent On a trial upon the merits. The motion is granted.
TIlliE TELEGRAPH Uo. v. HIMMER and others.
(Oircuit Court. 8. D. NetD York.
PATENTS-ESTOPPEL. . ,
The inventor,of a certain mechanism assigned. the improv(!ment to his em.ployers, by whom it was patented.. While in the same employ he 'ordered a mechanism to be made which he represented as a modification of the patented invention.. After leaving the service of his employers hemaDufactured machinery identical with what' he had previously ordered to hamade., Held. that he, and those in privity with him, were estopped to deny that the mechanism in question was covered by the patent.
In Equity. B. S. Clark, for complainant. Roscoe Conkling arid E. N. Dickerson, Jr., of counsel Lee « McClure, for Himmer and Uarey. B. F. Lee,'df Munsel. WALLACE, J. ' The peculiar facts of this oase authorize the granting of a preliminary injunction as to Bome of the defendants, although the complainant's patent is of recent date,and has nev.er been adjudicated. The defendant Himmer was the inventor and assignor to the complainant of the improvement in electric clocks, described and claimed in the letters patent of the complainant. While he was in the employ of the complainant as its superintendent he ordered certain clock mechanism to be made, which was identicl;l.l in parts and arrangements with that now sought to be enjoined, respresenting it to be one of the modifica.tions of the invention secured by the patent. Special tools and dies were obtained to construct this mechanism, and the complainant's officers, assuming that the ant was protected by the patent, have embodied this. mechanism in their clocks, nnd introduced them t.o the public. After Himmer left the complainant's employ he induced the manufacture:rswho were then' making this clock mechanism for the complainant, to supply 'him with the various parts sufficient to make a number of complete