cl1ocks. These have been put together by him, (or his wife, in whose name the clock.making business is carded on,) and through the agenoyof the defendant Carey, who seems to have been cognizant of all the facts, and to be the principal prompter of the transaction, are now being introduced to the public in competition with the complainant's clocks. Upon these facts Himmer"is estopped, for the purposes of· a motion like this, from contesting the validity of thepaterit,. or denying that the clock mechanism he employs is covered by the claims of the patept. He cannot be heard to assert either' of these defenses after inducing the complainant to acquire the patent and engage in making and selling clocks under it, such as he now undertakes to make and vend. Carey occupies no better position, than Himmer does. He is Himmer's alte'!' ego in thesoheme of pirating the complainant's rights. His general denial of community of interest with Himmer goes for nothing, in view of the facts and circumstances which are set forth in the complainant's affidavits, and which are sufficient to oall upon him for a full and explicit disclosure of his relations with Himmer, in order to exonerate himself. Np case is made for an injunction against the defendants than Himmer and Carey. As to Himmer and Carey, an injunotion is granted; as to the other defendants, the motion is denied.
GIBBS V. HOEFNER
((JirlJuit (Jourt, N. D. New York. Febrnary I, 1884.)
A patent will not be declared void for inutlIity if it possesses any utUlty 'Whatsoever, even the slightest. .
BAME-LICENSE TO USE NOT ASSIGNAHLE.
A license to .use a patented process at the licensee's place 01 lIuaUlt:il. associate others with him in such use, is not assignable.
COXE, J. The oomplainant, who is owner of a three-fourths interest in letters patent issued for an improvement in the manufacture of soap, seeks to recover the gains and profits which have accrued to the defendant Hoefner by reason of his alleged infringement. The other defendants are thtl owners of the remaining one-fourth interest and were impleaded because they declined to join with the complainant. No personal claim is made against them. The patent expired April 25, 1882. Two defenses are interposed upon the merits. The defendant insists-First, that the patent is void for want of utility; ucond, that he has not infringed.
James S. Gibbs, complainant in person. Adelbert Moot, for defendant.
BEED tI. HOLLIDAY.
days thereafter, $200 when the profits amounted to that sum, and the remaining $400 when half the prof\ts reached that amount. It is unfortunate that at this time the defendant did not obtain a license from the complainant; he was doubtless misled as to his rights and supposed he was purchasing not only the apparatus but the right to operate it. The court, however, must construe the contract according to its true legal import. Sherwood could, of course, convey no more than he himself possessed. What he possessed was a "shop right" for Buffalo, a mere personal license. It was not assignable and gave him no right to authorize others to use the process, except in the manner expressly stipulated. Rubber 00. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. . 788; Troy Fact. v. Oorning, 14 How. 193; Searls v. Bouton, 12 FED. REP. 140. After the agreement was executed the machine and fixtures were owned by the defendant. They were operated in his place of business. Sherwood had no title to them; he was not a partner of the defendant or associated in business with him in any legal sense. His only interest was to see that the defendant paid him the $800 pursuant to the terms of the contract. Upon this proof r am constrained to hold that the defendant has infringed. The other defenses of a technical character have been carefully examined but it is thought that none of them are well founded.· It follows that there must be a decree for the complainant with a reference to a master.
and another v.
(C'ircuit Court, W. D. Penn81/lvania. January 31,188.4.)
COPYRIGHT-ACT OF CONGRESS.
The act of congress secures to the proprietor of a copyright the" sole liberty" of printing, etc., and vending the copyrighted book, and this is inconsistent with a right in any other person to print and vend material and valuable portions of said work taken veroatim. therefrom. .
BAME-INFRINGEMENT-TEXT-BoOKs-KEY FOR USE OF TEACHERS.
A key, purporting to be for the use of teachers, to copyrighted text-books which contain an original method by which instruction in the English language is made interesting and effective by the use of sentences formed into diagrams under certain rules and principles of analysis, in which key are transcribed from the original works, diagrams, and also all the lesson-sentences arranged in diagrams according to said rules, is an infringement of the copyright.
S. 8AME-INJUNCTION......WHAT MUST liE SHOWN. Upon an application for an injunction to restrain infringement, it is not necessary to show that the piratical work is a substitute for the original. 4. SAME-INTENTION. Intention is a matter of no moment if infringement otherwise appears. Ii. B.AME-INJUNCTION-WHEN GRANTED. If a plaintiff shows infringement of his copyright the court will grant an injunction without proof of actual damage.