cannot be disputed; certainly the defendants who have appropriated it completely can hardly dispute the proposition. Everybody recognizes the advantage of having the fuel supply and the steam-pressure reciprocally regulated, so that when the pressure in the boiler reaches the designated point of safety or convenience the diminished fuel supply will relieve the pressure, and, when it falls below the proper point, the increased supply will bril1git back to the required power. Dickerson devised one set of contrivances adapted to his particular form d burner to acC()mplil311 this object. .Shipman devised another set adapted to the particular form of atomizer employed in his furnace to accomplish it. There wl1s inventive thought in ,the idea that he could make a valve in the steampipe of existing atomizers to do the work of a valve in both the steampipeand''the of Dickerson's apparatus. Still more was there inventive thought in the idea that he could make any form of existing :regulators lend a new function to the steam-pipe of existing atomizers. It is a significant fact that Shipman's apparatus immediately commended itself tlle public for its, practical efficiency, and has met wiih an ex,tensiveand increasing patronage both in this country and abroad, while none' of the devices described in the prior patents have ever gone into publktIse. This circumstance, while it suggests that the former devices may not'have been practically operative, is persuasive that WhlLt Ship:mim did by way ofimproving themwas:not such an obvious thing as to deprive, it of the merit ofJ'llnking as invention. A decree is ord fol' red the complainants.
HUBEBetal. 'II. MYERS SANITARY DEPOT.
(Oirooit Oourt, S. D. New York. April 16, 1888.)
'1'hesole owner of orie patent and exclusive licensee of another may. in one actiun. joIning his!icensor as plaintiff, enjoin an apparatus infringing on bothpateuts. .
,In Eqnity.Bill for infringement. Albert Cornstock, for comp1l:Linants. William, H. Sage, for defendant.
LACOMBE, J. The complainant Huberis sole owner of letters patent No. 260,232. The complainant Boyleis sole owner of letters patent No. 255,485. Huber is also exclusive licensee of Boyle's patent. The defendant manufacturesalld sells machines which, it is alleged, infringe both patents. Defendant demurs for. misjoinder of parties. Tpe point raised is a new one, and in determining it the "court is governed by those analogies which seem best founded ill general convenience, and will best. the, administration of justi,ccj without multiplying unnecessary litigatiop ,on the one hand, or drawing suitors into, unnecessary expensea
BLESSIKG V. JOHN TRAGESER STEAM COPPER WORKS.
on the other." HaYe8 v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 704. The complainant Huber, if sale owner of both patents, could in a single suit enjoin an apparatus which infringed both. Nourse v. AUen, 4 Blatchf. 376. He is in fact the sole owner of the one, and, except for the payment of his royalties, entitled to the whole beneficial interest in the other. As exclusive licensee, however, he is required to join the owner of the legal title. Northv. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70. It would, however, unnecessarily multiply expensive litigation to hold that the inmriable consequeI).ce of thus bringing in the owner must be to compel the complainant to bring two actions, instead of one, to suppress a single infringing apparatus. The demurrer is overruled·
et al. v.
JOHN TRAGESER STEAM COPPER WORKS.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. Net/) York. April 28,1888.)
PATENTS FOR PATENTABILITY.
A demurrer for non-patentability apparent upon the face of the patent should ndt be allowed unless the instrument is so palpably destitute of invention that the court can say that no question of fact can arise upon it. A complaint for the infringement of letters patent must state that the In· ventlon had 1J.0t been In public use or on sale for more than two years prior to the application therefor. It is not sufficient to state that it was not in pub· lic use or on sale with the consent of the inventor.
Demurrer to a complaint for infringement of letters patent.
George G. Frelinghuysen, for plaintiff. Frederic H. Betts and J. E. Hindon Hyde, for defendant.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a demurrer in an Rction at law for the infringement ofletters patent No. 80,441, dated July 28,1868, for an improvementin copper-lined batll-tubs. Two grounds of demurrer are (1) That the.complaint, of"which the letters patent are made a pl!-rt, by profert, does not state facte sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it is apparent on the face of the patent that it does not contain a patentable invention. (2) That the complaint does not state that the invention had not been in public use or sale in this country for more than two years befdre the date of the application. It avers that the invention was not, at the time of the application, in public use, or on sale with the consent or allowance of the inventor, contrary to the provisions of the statute of the United States. The first ground of demurrer raises the question whether the described improvement is so obviously the result of a mere exercise of mechanical skill that the patent is void, upon its face, and must be adjudged to be invalid. It is well settled that, in a bill in equity for \he infringement v.34F.no.9-48 .