IOWA BARB STEEL-WIRE
SOUTHERN BARBED-WIRE CO.
pose within his territory. ' The preliminary injunction was limited to restraint of sales outside of his territory. Hatch v. HaU, 22 Fed. Rep. 438. It was not held, however, that participating in such sales by others should not be likewise restrained. Such outside dealer was'held liable in Hatch v. Adoll1l.8, 22 Fed. Rep. 434, with refereuce to this same patent, and these same territorial rights. The defendant is now held liable for. aiding in the same thing. Let there be a decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from selling, and from selling to others for sale, in the territory of the orators, and for. an account of profits and damages, with costs.
IOWA BABB STEEL-WIRE CO. 'II. SOVTHERN BABBED-WlBECO.
(Oirc'Uit Oourt, B. D. Miuouri, B. D., April 22,1887.)
1.PATEl!I"1'8 POR INvENTIONS-LICENSE-OPTION CONTRACT.
In Equity. . . Rule upon John W. Gates, Alfred Clifford, and Charles H. Rowe, de:fendants in the above-entitled case, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt in continuing to manufacture, as officers of the Southern Wire Company, wire adjudged by the court in this cause, to be an infringement of complainant's patent. The respondents answer that said wire company was licensed by the Washburn & Moen facturing Company and I. L. Ellwood, long prior to the decree in this case, to manufacture the wire adjudged to be an infringement of complainant's patent, and that respondents have manufactured the infringing article as officers of the Southern Wire Company, in the belief that said company was licensed to continue the manufacture of said wire during the time they manufactured it as its officers, by an option contract entered into between the complainant and said Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company, whereby the former agreed for a valuable consideration, to sell the patent alleged to have been infringed by respondents, and assign all damages that might be recovered, to the Washburn & Moen Company for a sum specified, provided that com-
pany should elt;lct to hpy, within 60 days after,the entry of a nnal decree in this suit; and whereby th,ecomplainant also agreed tv bring no suit, except this ()ue for the infringement of said Plltent, against the Washburn & M<>en Manufacturing CompAny,odts licepsees, until afterthe of said 60 days. For opinion, op,motion for attachment for contempt, see 29 Fed. Rep,. 123; for opinion as to infringement, see 29 Fed. Rep. 863. John R. Bennettand W.M. Kinsey, fur complainant. '; J. M. Holme.sand Walker & Walker, for respondents.
THAYER, J., (oraUy.) In the case of the Iowa Barb Steel-Wire Company against the Southern Bat'bed-Wire Company, when a rule was granted a few weeks ago against certain of the defendants requiring them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt in violating the injuncti()n, the only questions reserved were the questions-First, whether the defefidants, in doing theact'cdmplained' 'of,wereprotected by a license from the complainant or its assignees, granted the "Southern Wire Company;" 'and, see'ondly,'ln·the event tha.t the license pleaded was held to be ineffectual, whether the defendant had acted in good faith under belief that such license authorized the act complained of. Upon: an', examination' 'Of the contract between the Iowa Barb: Steel-Wire Company and)he Washburn & MoenM8:tl,ufacturing Company, uponiwhich the license depends, we are both of the opinion that the contract is not ihtheIiatute ofll.license, and that it is insufficient to support the claim made by these defendants that thaIowa Barbed SteelJWire Company has granted them the right to manufacture the wire in question. We itre furthermore ,of the opinion, ilpon looking iilw the return made by these that it is most prob!tblethat the defendants have, i.n doing the acts complained of, acted in good faith, under the belief that the contract in question authorized them to do what they are accused of having done, and, inasmuch as it appears that they ceased to manufacture the wire as soon as these proceedings were begun, .until Ii construction had been placed upon such contract; that they are not guilty of any willful contempt of court, and should not be punished as if so guilty. We therefore discharge the rule in this case, upoupayment of costs by the defendant, holding, however, that the contract under which they have heretofore claimed the right to manufacture the wire in question is ineffectual w give them any such right.
CELLULOID MANUF'G CO. V. ZYLONlTE NOVELTY CO.
CELI,ULOID MANUF'G Co. V. ZYLONITE NOVELTY CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. N(!/J) York.
PATENTS FOR lNVENTIONS-NOVELTY-CET,LULOID COLLARS.
The mere turning down and cementing the edges of celluloid collars and cuffs in the form of a hem, is nQt new, and,dpes not constitute invention.
In Equity. SuitJor infringement of letters patent. Betts, Atterbury &: Betts, for complainant. E. },f. F,elt, (H. M. RuggkB,of counsel,) for defendant. W ALLAClll, J. The claim of tl1e, patent in suit is " ac<;)llar or cUffmade or other pyroxyline material, from a single thickness. of matertal, having'the edges turned over onto itself to form a hem;"aubstantiallyas specified." The specification, as illustrated by tBi:ldramngs, denotes that the collar Qr cllffis made frorn·a sheet of the material, which has been cut into a suitable blank, and' the hem is formed by the edges over on the back and cemeptingthem down. The specification contains no instructions as to the method of turning down the hem and it, .nor does it give any description of the to be used. Collars and made of celluloid, but not having theiredgestutne.d down and cemented 80 88: to form a hem, were old at the tilne themleged invention of the patent was made. It was also old to turn dOW'll the edges ofsheets ofcelluloid. There was no novelty ih cementing:imch material to itself; and cements for doing this were well 'known. It was not new to form.a hem at the edge of a sheet of cotton, lineq, leather, India rubber, paper, tin, sheet-iron, etc., by turning it over at the edge, and cementing it down, and different kinds ofcement were in use for that purpose. It was common to employ a hem in such materials to strengthen articleS at the edge, and to make a smooth turnedover edge,88 distinguished from a raw edge.88 in linen collars and' cuffs and in leather pocket-books and portfolios.· This being the· priOl! state of the art, it seems almost preposterous to claim that it was invention to fold down the edge of a celluloid collar ,or cuff, and form a hem by cementing the folded part down. Undoubtegly, a hem to collars and cuffs ofthis material was an improvement, notoIlly 88 giving the article a more attractive appearance, but also. as adding strellgth at the edge, and substituting a finished in the a cut edge. The result accomplished was similar in these respects ti) that produced by a hem upon linen collars or cuffs. But with celluloid collars and cuffs it was important to produce an article of sufficient fl lxibility to be comfortable, and yet of sufficient rigidity and strength not to break at the edges. This was effected by making the :hem.But everything done by the patentee was old, except to adopt a bern for celluloid articles, such 88 had been used upon articles made of other materiaUo produce results similar in kind,-that of imparting rigidity and smoothness of finish to the material at the edge. The adapta:bility of the hem