bury Button") .has quite as good a' periphery support as the complainant's. Indeed, when the wire constituting the thread-bar and periphery of this button is inclosed.within the disks, it is difficult, i£,not impossible, .00 distinguish it from the complainant's, even in form, except that the ba.r is bent at which, as we have seen, is immaterial. Woodbury's patent conteI),lplates and suggests a covering for the wire, and course may be of the metaJlic disks then in use, or other lpaterial. 'the Thalheimer button is identical with the complainant's even in form,its thread.bar is straight, and the ends fitted to the periphery.Wl)ile Mr. Thalheimer testifies very positively to its manufacture prior to the date of. complainant's patent, a question is raised raspectinghisaccuracy. The view we entertain rE-nders a decision of this question unnecessary. If the complainant was not actually anticipated, it is very clear, we think, that what be did does not embrace invention. He simply straightened the bar of the old glove button, and possiblyexercised greater care. to make its length correspond with the diameter of the disks, or straightened the bar of the Woodbury button, and added a covering, as suggested by that patent. The testimony and argumeLt directed to the points of cheapness, lightness, and strength (elsewhere> than at the periphery) are aside of the question involved.. As we bold the claim to be invalid, the question of infringement need not be considered. The bill must be dismissed with costs.
t1. ARLING'l'ON MANUF'G
.(Clirouit Oourt, .D. N611J Jer8ell. January 10, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ACTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Defendant corporation did not deny Infringement, but claimed that it had ceased to infringe before bill filed, and did not intend to renew the use of the infringln/!, machine which still remained in its possession. Held,the patent havll)g been adjudicated to be valid, that a preliminary Injunction should be granted.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent No. 199,908, of February 5, 1878, to John W. Hyatt, assignor to the Celluloid Manufacturing Company, for the manufacture of celluloid and other plastic On motion for preliminary injunction. Rowland Cox, for the motion. John R. Bennett, contra.
WAJ,ES, J. The patent has been held to be valid. l Thedefendant admits, or at least does not deny, infringement, but claims tbat it had ceased to infringe before the bill was filed, and does not intend to renew
III Fed. Rep. 904.
MICHAELIS 'D. ROESSLER.
the use of the infringing machine. It still continues in possession Of all the contrivances and appliances to enable it to violate the patent, but promises not to use them for that purpose. This is a na.ked and ported promise. The practice of the courts in such cases is well settled. In Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 752, it was decided that "a bill for an injunction will lie, if the patent-right is admitted or nas been established, without any established breach, upon well-grounded proof of an hended intention on the part of the defendant to viola1e the plaintiff's right." A fortiori should an injunction issue where, as in the present case, the defendant has already infringed, and nothing but a mere promise stands in the way of its doing so again. The general rule is stated in Walk. Pat. § 676, and concludesas follows: "Indeed, no injunction can be averted by affirmative evidence that the defendant has ceased to infringe, even though coupled with a promise that he will infringe nb more." See, also, Curt. Pat. § 422, which gives the same rule, only in different language. Further authority on the same point may be found in Ohemical Work8 v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. 179, and in Lo8h v. Hague, 1 Webl;lt. Pat. Cas. 200. If the defendant intends in good faith to keep its promise, the injunction will not harm it; otherwise, it will be a security for the plaintiff that its rights will not again be invaded. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. New Jersey. January 18, 1888.) 1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ExTENT OF CLAIM-PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURiNG CHLOROFORM.
The second claim of letters patent No. 322,194, of July 14, 1885, to Gustayus Michaelis, for "the manufacture of chloroform and purified acetates," is as follows: "The production of chloroform from the liquid products resulting from the decomposition of crude acetates at high temperatures by subjecting 'said liquid'products to the action of a hypochlorite, and removlUg the chlo· roform therefrom by distillation, substantially as described. "The patent con· tained no reference to the color or degree of crudeness of the acetates, and stated that the brown acetates were preferable for the purpose. Heid, the gray acetates being distinguishable, as respects crudeness, from the brown only in a slight degree, that they were embraced in the term" crude acetates." Gray acetates being embraced in the term "crude acetates." as used in the second claim of letters patent No. 322,194. of July 14, 1885. to Gustavus Michaelis for "the manufacture of chloroform and purified acetates," their use in the production of chloroform in combination with It method of distillation substantially the same as that described in the Michaelis patent is an infringement thereof.
8. SAME- V ALIDITY-!NACCURACIEB IN SPECIFICATIONS.
There being room for doubt that Gustavus Michaelis (letters patent No. 322,194, of July 14, 1885) was the first to discover fhat chloroform could be,advantageously obtained from the liquid products resulting from thedecon1position of crude acetates of lime by the method of distillation described in the patent. and it being very clear that the production of chloroform was greatly cheapened by that discovery, the patent is not invalidated by the facts that