the other. Then the orator is not entitled to a monopoly of this frICtion surface in such machines. It is· said that beyond this he did nothing but to bring the !:pring of former machines into Knowlson's, which could be accomplished by the skill of good workmanship. Had this been all, the argument would be well founded. But he did more. One spring would not have apswered to repel the friction surfaces in that machine; two would have been necessary, and of different power; one to repel the cone on the wheel not geared, and another and stronger to repel the drum and that from the gear-wheel. 'The orator dispensed with one of Knowlson's friction cones and flanges, rearranged and !limplified the machine, and put the spring where it was needed or where he wanted it. 'fhis appears, after it was done, to have been easy to do; but no one did it before and it makes a more compact, economical, and useful machine. Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580. The patent is for' the new combination. It is further strenously urged that the gear-wheel, with the cone, supported in the orator's peculiar manner, is one element of the combination, and that, as the defendant does not nse that element, it does not infringe that combination. But the gear-wheel and friction cone of the defendant are the equivalent in the combination to those of the ,)rator, and by the use of them the defendant takes the orator's patented combination. Let there be a decree for the orator for an injuction and an account, with costs.
MALLORY MANUF'G Co. v. HICKOK and another.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. April 5, 1884.)
PATENTSlI'OR INVENTIOKS-INlI'RINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-PREVIOUS ADJUDICATlOX.
Upon the decision of a motion for a preliminary injunction against the infringement of a patent, which has heen sustained by a previous adj;Idication, it is proper, as R general rule, to follow the construction of the patent given upon such adjudication, provided the construction was given with deliberation and thoughtfulness in thf' use of language.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Eugene Treadwell, for plaintiff. Wm. Edgar Simonds, for defendants. SHIPMAN,;T. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction against the infringement of letters patent to George Mallory, dated February 11, 1868, for an improvement in hats. The defense is non-infringement. The invention is described· and the patent is construed in Mallor.1J Manuf'g Co. v. Marks, 20 Blatchf. C. C. 32.1 It is not claimed that the present defendants use twisted wire, and, for the purposes of
, IS. C, 11 FEb. RE!>. 887.
VERMONT FARM MACHINE CO. V. MA.RBLB.
this motion, it is admitted that round bent wire is used. The only question is whether such use is an infringement. Upon the decision of a motion for a preliminary injunction against the infringement of a patent which has been sustained by a previous adjudication, it is proper, as a general rule, to follow the construction of the patent which was given upon such adjudication, provided the conbtruction was given with deliberation and thoughtfulness in the use of language. Judge BLATCHFORD says in his opinion that the specification uses the word "bent" as synonymous with the word "twisted;" and further says: "The hoop of the claim must be a spring hoop twisted substantially in the manner described in the patent. This construction is neces· sary to sustain the claim, in view of the state of the art as shown." I do not mean to say that the question in regard to the proper con· struction of the patent is to be considered as finally settled by the decision in the Marks Case, but, for the purposes of this motion, it is not expedient to depart from Judge BLATCHFORD'S construction, whicb was carefully given. The motion is denied.
VERMONT FARM MACHINE
Co. and others v.
(Oi1'cuit Court, D. Vermont.
April 12, 1884.)
JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COUR'f-ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE.
By accepting service of process the defendant, in a suit arising under the patent laws, subjects himself to the jurisdictiou of a court, sitting in a district of which he is not a resident. The United States courts have jurisdiction of bills to obtain the issue of patents refused by the commissioner.
2. SAME-BILL TO SECURE A PATENT.
S. SAME-WANT OF POWER TO ENFORCE DECREE.
1'he fact that a circuit court cannot compel the commissioner of patents to obey its decree is no object.ion to its jurisdiction to entertain a bill against him for the purpose of obtaining a decree in favor of the orator's right to a patent. It is presumed that he will do his duty
In Equity. Frank T. Brown, for commissioner. William. E. Simonds, for orators. WHEELER, J. The bill was brought for an adjudication that the orators were entitled to a patent, pursuant· to section 4915, Rev. St. The defendant accepted service of the subprena to have the same ef· fect as if duly served on him by a proper officer, and acknowledged receipt ofa eopy, but did not appear in court, nor made any objection to proceeding to decree. After hearing the orators, a decree was made and entered in their favor. 19 FED. REP. 307. The present commissioner now moves for a rehearing, principally upon the ground