19 Fed. Rep. 819, heard before the learned judge of the district of Massachusetts, the record of which has been put into this case, the validity of this patent is sustained; but the defendants in that case cut their blanks from a ribbed strip of metal substantially as called for by the patent, and therefore the infringement was clearly established, and that case has no special bearing upon the questions involved in this. The proof shows that the ol'iginal application was made by Polsey in July, 1866, with a broad claim for a "nail having a cut head and drawn point, as a new article of manufacture," and not limiting the process of manufacture to cold rolling the shank of the nail, but allowing it to be hot rolled, swaged, or hammered, although the applicant expressed a preference for the cold rolling of the shank. This application was rejected in November, 1866, and laid dormant in the patent-office until June, 1869, when the specification was amended by striking out all but the signature, and inserting the specification of the patent as it now stands. The specifications of the present patent are so different from the original as to make what seems to me to be a new and different patent from that described in the original application, and therefore, for all the purposes of this patent, the application must be considered as filed June 23, 1869. In December, 1866, the English patent to Lake, on the communication of Polsey, was obtained, and, as the life of this English patent limits the life of the American patent to 17 years from the date of the English patent, I think the life of this patent is limited to 17 years from December, 1866; by which rule this patent had expired before this suit was commenced, and therefore there was no jurisdiction in equity, even if the defendants had infringed it during its life-time. This bill is therefore dismissed for want of equity.
(Oireuit Oourt, N.D. iUinois. March 22,1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ADMISSIONS IN ANSWER.
In a suit for infringement of reissued letters patent No. '5.207, granted De· cember 31, 1872, to the complainant, as assignee of S. E. Chase, for an improvement in finishing horseshoe-nails. the answer said that the defendant had "never felt disposed to contest said matter with the complainant, but chose rather to make such terms as were by said complainant made with the other companies, and pay for its royalty, rather than to have litigation, and proposes to do the same now, and has so offered to do with said complainant both before and after this suit was commenced." Held, that with this admission in the defendant's answer there could be but one decree. and that in favor of c<lmplainant, sustaining the validity of the patent and finding infringe ment.
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
GLOBE NAIL 00. tI. SUPERIOR NAIL CO.
In Equity. Thomas H. Pease and Morse et Stone, for complainant. Offield eX Towle, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. This suit is brought for an injunction and acconnt. ing by reason of the alleged infringment of letters patent No. 5,207, granted December 31, 1872, to the Globe Nail Company. assignee of S. E. Chase, for an "Improvement in Finishing Horseshoe-nails," the original patent having been granted June 9, 1868. The patent covers a device for forming the point of horseshoe-nails by first beveling the point of the blank by rolling or pressing, and then shearing away the superfluous metal from the edges or sides of the blank, so as to' give the nail the required taper upon its sides, this shearing being done by a V·shaped cutting die, into which the nail is forced. The claim of the patent is:
"(1) In finishing nails for animals' shoes, the process of beveling the small end of each by spreading the metal by pressure, and then removing the superfluous metal by cutting or shearing, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) 'file proctlss of curving the bodies of nails and beveling their points by spreading the metal1ateraUy, and afterwards forcing them through an open die to shear off the superfluous metal, sUbstantially as and for the purpose specified. "
The process used by the defendant, as shown by the proof, is: They form a blank by a hot-rolling process from a rod. This blank is then taken to a finishing machine, where the nail receives a slight rolling, commencing near the head and gradually compressing it to. wards the point, making the point hard, and, at the same time, form. ing upon the point of the blank a bevel by pressure. The nail is then held against a punch, and a V-shaped die advances and shears away the superfluous metal upon the edges of the blank so as to point the nail and give it the requisite taper. There can be no doubt, I think, that this process is substantially the process covered by the patent, and the defendants do not deny their infringement, nor do they deny the validity of the patent. The defendant in its answer says it "has never felt disposed to contest said matter with the com· plainant, but chose rather to make such terms as were by said com· plainant made with the other and pay for its royalty, rather than to have litigation, and proposes to do the same now, and has so offered to do with said complainant both before and after this suit was commenced." With this admission in the defendant's answer there can be but one decree, and that is in favor of complainant, sustaining the valid. ity of the patent and finding infringement.
MULLER .". ELLISON
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. May 6,1886.)
::.. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-CHAINS FOR BRACELETS, ETC.
Letters patent No. 287,564, of October 30, 1883, to Carl A. Muller, for an improvement in chains for bracelets and articles of jewelry, are void for want of patentable novelty. An ornamental chain, composed of transverse helices interwoven together, in the usual way, with the ends of the wires bent inwardly, so as to interlock, does not present a patentable invention; as the idea of bending in rather than of soldering the ends or of closing the ends of the spirals was an idea which would naturally suggest itself to the workerin wire, and the bending was the ordinary work of the skilled artisan.
Henry C. Andrew,q, for plaintiff. E. R. Mead, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the infringement of letters patent No. 287,564, issued October 30, 1883, to the complainant for an improvement in chains for bracelets and articles of jewelry. The defendants took no proofs, and did not appear at the hearing. The specification of the patent sayFl that-
"Chains have been made of wire helices intertwined or threaded together. and prOVided with end plates or caps, to which the ends of the wires are fastened. Chains made in this manner are expensive, in consequence of the cost of soldering, and with rolled plate the end pieces are more expensive than the wire, because it is more difficult to make such end plates with the entire surface of gold. In my improved chain the ends of the wire forming the helices are bent inwardly, and interlocked in such a manner as to prevent the helices nntwisting or separating, and at the same time to form an ornamental edge along the fiat chain. * I am aware that wire helices have been screwed or interwoven together to form chains, armor, bed bottoms, and other articles, and that the end coils of the helices have been closed, to prevent one helix unscrewing from the next. This is not adapted to chains for bracelets, because the edges of the chain cannot be made uniform in appearance, and the ends of the wire kept within the edge, so as to avoid roughness. By bending the ends of the wires inwardly, as described, ranges of edge loops are formed, and the ends of the wires are entirely within the chain."
'fhe claim is as follows:
"The ornamental chain, composed of transverse helices Interwoven together, with the ends of the wires bent inwardly, so to interlock, substantially as set forth."
The improved method of manufacture commences after the spirals have been wound and interwoven together in the customary way. The first step is to clip the ends of the spirals evenly, by one trans1 Edited
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.