the use or sale by the defendants of any of the valves embodying the invention, should any be found in their possession, and also against the use of the tools and paraphernalia of infringement made during the life of the patent for the purpose of infringement. In a bill in equity, brought more than a year after the patent has expired, we do not see how an injunction can be granted under the allegations of the bill in respect to the matters prayed for, and we do not think the cases cited by plaintiff's counsel sustain his position. For these reasons the demurrer of the defendants must be sustained, and the bill dismissed. The bill in equity No. 2,165, brought upon patent No. 85,963, dated January 19,1869, granted to George W. Richardson, prays for a preliminary injunction. The complainant relies upon the decision of the supreme court, sustaining the Richardson patents. Consolidated, Valve Co. v. Safety Valve Co., 113 U. S. 157; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513. We recognize the binding authority of that decision, and, if applicable to the present case, it is, of course, conclusive. But upon this point we have a doubt. There is much going to show that the supreme court construed the Richardson patents to cover a valve in which the outlet from the huddling-chamber was smaller than the inlet, and that this was one of the main features of the invention. In the case before us the outlet is larger than the inlet. Whatever opinion the court may come to upon a full hearing on the merits of the case, we do not think the complainant's right to a preliminary injunction so free from doubt that the court should grant it. Under these circumstances the motion must be denied. The demurrers of two of the defendants, Ashton and Reed, officers of the defendant corporation, based upon the ground that they have no connection with the alleged infringement, are overruled. It is clear that they are proper parties to the bill.
NORTON DOOR CHECK & SPRING Co. v. ELLIOTT PNEUMATIO DoonCHECK Co. and others.
(Oircuit OOU'I't, D. Massachusetts. December 4, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-MACHINES FOR CLOSING DOORS WITHOUT SLAMMING.
Patent No. 144,926, to F. H.Richards, November 25,1873, for improvement in door-sprmgs, and No. 251,790, granted to Lewis C. Norton, January3, 1882, for improvement in door-checks, compared with Elliott's patent, and held, that the second claim of the Richards patent is infringed thereby, butthat the first claim of the Norton patent is not infringed thereby.
In Equity. Chauncey Smith and Geo. O. G. Coole, for complainants.
NORTON DOOR-CHECB:, ETC., CO. 'l1. ELLIOT!' PNEUMATIC DOOR-CHECK 00.
James E. Maynadier, for defendants. COLT, J. The defendants are charged with infringement of the patent granted to F. H. Richards, November 25, 1873, numbered 144,926, for improvement in door-springs; also with infringement of the patent granted to Lewis C. Norton, January 3, 1882, numbered 251,790, for improvement in door-checks. The invention of Richards has for its object a machine for closing doors quickly without slamming, and it consists in the employment of a group of devices for producing an air cushion, so as to check the movement of the door just before it closes, and thus prevent it from slamming. We find in the Richards machine a cylinder of proper length, closed at one end, a packed piston capable of traveling in the cylinder, a spring exerting So pressure upon the piston, suitable means for allowing the air to enter freely and escape slowly from the air chamber in the closed end of the cylinder, and means for mounting the piston and cylinder upon the door and its jamb. When the door is released the spring will drive the piston forward, and the piston will impart its motion to the door. At first, but little resistance will be offered to the motion of the piston, because the air is compressible; gradually, however, as the escape vent in the end of the cylinder is small, the air will be more and more compressed, until it will counteract the force of the spring and the momentum of the door, and the door will almost stop for an instant, and then close slowly as the air escapes through the vent. The charge of infringement is confined to the second claim of the patent, which is as follows:
"2. The grooved screw, I, for adjusting the vent, in combination with the packing, H, piston, G, tube, D. and coiled spring, F, or eqUivalent, substantially as herein shown and described."
It is clear that the elements mentioned in the foregoing claim are found in the Elliott, or defendants', machine, and that the Elliott machine accomplishes the same result, of checking the motion of the door in closing, in substantially the same manner as the Richards machine. Stress is laid upon the fact that in the Richards machine the cupped packing performs the double office of a packing and a valve, to admit the air as the piston moves back, and which closes when the piston moves forward; while Elliott has a piston with cupped packing, and a valve in the center of the piston, for the purpose of admitting air to the cylinder during the backward stroke, and confining it during the forward stroke. We think it may be said, however, that these devices were known substitutes for each other. We must also bear in mind that Richards was the first to organize a machine to check the motion of So door just before it closes, and thus prevent slamming; and that, therefore, his patent is entitled to a broad construction. These considerations lead us to the conclusion that the defendants have not escaped the charge of infringement of the second claim of the Richards patent by the form v.26F.no.5-21
of valve employed. The evidence does not sustain the defense that the double duty of a packing and valve performed by the cupped packing in the Richards machine renders it inoperative, though undoubtedly the use of a valve in the piston, together with the packing, as employed by Elliott, makes a more efficient machine. The Richards machine appears to be a practical working device, whatever its commercial value may be. Several patents are referred to as anticipations of Richards' machine. The Richards device is both a door-spring and a door-check. The prior Ovenden patent does not appear to describe any spring; and, further, it has no adjustable vent. The machine operates by allowing the air confined in a cylinder closed at both ends to leak past the piston, the air being confined in the compressed-air chamber until the piston has reached a certain point of its stroke, when it is allowed to escape past the piston, thus relieving the piston from all resistance. This is not the air-cushioning device of the Richards patent, which operates to arrest the motion of the door just before it closes, to prevent it from slamming, and then allows it to proceed to close effectively. In the Shaw patent there is no checking device, such as is contained in the Richards machine. The Harrison patent, dated July 6, U169, and the Moore patent, of August 10, 1869, for water-closet valves, are also introduced as anticipating the Richards device, or for the purpose of limiting the second claim of the patent. We consider the mode of operation of the Harrison and Moore valve-cocks so essentially different from the Richards machine that they cannot fairly be held to anticipate it. Some portions of the mechanism employed are also substantially different. The devices of Harrison or Moore cannot be used, practically, for door-checks. There is not sufficient analogy between the devices and their uses to justify the conclusion that there was no invention in what Richards did, nor to warrant us in limiting the invention of Richards to the grooved screw for adjusting the vent. We now come to the consideration of the second branch of the case, -whether the defendants infringe the Norton patent. The Norton is an the Richards machine. The patent states that the invention described consists chiefly in the combination of a doorcheck with a door and jamb, by means of certain connecting and operating mechanisms, "all so arranged together that when the door is being closed at a constant rate of speed there will be a material in. crease in the rapidity with which the piston is driven home, as the door nears the jamb, and consequently the resisting or cushioning power of the air in the cylinder in front of the piston will not materially affect the motion of thepiston until the piston is driven nearly home, and the door is about to strike the jamb." In the Norton patent the cylinder is hinged to the jamb, and there is a crank-arm, called the guide-rod, to control the piston stroke, and a connecting arm to operate the piston-rod. The two arms are connected by brack-
NORTON DOOR-CHECK, ETC., CO. 'V. ELLIOTT PNEUMATIC DOOR-CHECK CO.
ets to the door and jamb. One end of the connecting arm has a flattened surface, which the patent calls a disk. To the lowt'r part of this disk is pivoted the piston-rod, and to the upper part of it is pivoted the guide-rod. These two pivots are termed respectively h and hi. The specification says that the purpose of the guide-rod is to control the length and direction of the piston stroke, and its pivot, h', acts as a fulcrum upon which the connecting arm turns, "and which is necessary for the proper working of the device; ,. ,. · the leverage acquired by the use of these two pivots being sufficient to do away with any fear of a dead point" when the door is open wider than a point at right angles to the jamb. In the Elliott machine we find two arms pivoted together and connected to brackets on the door and jamb. The piston-rod is hinged and the cylinder is set parallel with the jamb. But Elliott uses only one pivot in place of two. Norton, in his specification, considers two pivots necessary to the proper working of his device. If the first claim of the Norton patent, which is the only one in controversy, embraces a connection between the two arms and the piston-rod, where two pivots are uRed for a purpose which the patentee regards as necessary for the proper working of his device, and if Elliott uses but one pivot, he does not infringe, because he does not employ the same elements, or their equivalents, in combination. . The first claim of the Norton patent is for the combination with a door and its jamb of a compressed-air door-check, provided with an arm whereby its piston-rod may be operated, a guide-rod whereby the stroke of its piston will be controlled, and suitable devices for attachment of the arm, guide-rod, and door-check to the door or its jamb;
all connected and operating together substantially as and adapted jor the purposes set forth. In our opinion, this claim, taken in connec-
tion with the specification and drawings, includes, as a part of the mechanism therein described, the two pivots by means of which the arm is connected, first to the guide-rod and then to the piston, and the defendants, not using this device, do not infringe. The single pivot of Elliott is not the equivalent of the two pivots in the Norton machine. The fact that the Norton machine may be operative with the use of one pivot, does not meet the point. We deem it unnecessary to dwell upon the other defenses which are urged. Our conclusion is that the Elliott machine infringes the second claim of the Richards patent, and that it does not infringe the first claim of the Norton patent. Decree for complainants.
IRoN Co. and others.
AMERIOAN TUBE WORKS 'D. SAME.
(Circuit Court, D. MQ,88ackusett8. February 3, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTI<>NS-SUIT IN EQUITY ON EXPIRED PATENT.
A bill was filed to recover damages for infringement during the original term of a patent, which term had then expired, and equitable jurisdiction was sought to be maintained on the ground of the intricacy of the account. Held, following Lord v. Whitehead, 24 Fed, Rep. 801, that, in actions of tort, the mere intricacy of the account does not furnish a ground for equitable interference, and that the bill must be dismissed. A bill was filed July 10th on a patent which expired August 2d following. A perpetual, but not a provisional, injunction was prayed. Held, that the fact that no preliminary injunction was asked for was not material, as complainants had a right at any moment to amend their bill and pray for a provisional injunction. This case was cognizable in equity at the time the bill was tiled, and it was not impossible to have obtained equitable relief during the life of the patent. It was not a mere device to transfer a plain jurisdiction at law to a court of equity, as where the patent has only several days to run.
SAME-BILL FILED TwENTY-TlIRlt.ll:DAYS BEFORE PATENT EXPIRED.
.. SAME-EsTOPPEL-AcTS OF PATENTEE AFTER ASSIGNMENT.
By contract in writing made between patentee and defendants it was agreed defendants did not infringe the patent; but prior to the date of said contract the patentee had granted to complainants an exclusive license for the original term of the patent, and agreed to assign to them the extended term, which he did subsequent to the making of the contract. Held, that at the date of the contract complainants had vested in them the entire right to the patent for the extended term, and that right could not be disturbed by any act of the patentee. G. SAME-FREEBORN ADAMS PATENT, No. 24,915, AUGUST 2, 1859, CONSTRUED. The patent claimed, as a new article of manufacture, a tube or cylinder cast outof copper, and free from blow-holes and other similar defects, when produced as therein stated, Held, that the claim was limited to a particular product, when produced in a particular way.
This patent described apparatus whereby tbestream of molten copper Wa!l deposited in the annular space of a cylindrical rotating mould, so as to fall in subdivided portions all around, intermittently, in such manner as to allow the gases to escape and thus avoid blow-holes. In the prior patents the centrifugal force of rotation, and not patentee's method of distribution, was relied on to make a more perfect cylinder. Held, that the Adams patent possessed patentable novelty over what was shown of the prior art. The specification of the patent contained the words "a perfect cast copper cylinder," and the claim, the words "free from blow-holes and other similar defects." Held, that the claim must be construed to mean a cast copper cylinder so free from blOW-holes as to be considered sound,-sufficiently perfect to be used in the arts for the purposes for which copper cylindersareused,-QJId such standard of perfection is sufficiently definite. , In the casting of copper cylinders a basin, rotating on top of a stationll:fY mould, is the equivalent of a rotating mould, as the molten metal is d,istrlouted in the mould in the same manner substantially by each of the devlCes.
SAME-WORDS "FREE" AND "PERFECT" CONSTRUED.
lReported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., oftha Chicago bar;