BA.LL GLOVE FA.STENING CO.

v.

BALL

&;

SOCKET l"ASTENER 00.

309

BALL GLOVE FASTENING CO. 'II. BALL

&

SOCKET FASTENER CO.

(Circuit Court, D. Ma8sachus8tt8. August 16, 1888.)

1.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ACTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT-EQUITy-JURISDICTION.

EquitY' has jurisdiction of a bIll by the owner of a patent to obtain an account of royalties due from a licensee. and an injunction against using the patent in defiance of the agreement of license. Claims 2 and 4 of letters patent Nos. 290.067 and 806.021. for improvement!! in glove fasteners. consisting of the combination of a stud formed into a ball at its upper end, and extending through and connecting two disks, one above and one below the flap of the glove, with a ring having two elastic flanges or jaws. and a separate hood having two ears extending from its base ring. are infring-ed by a device having the same button member. and substan- . tially the same button-hole member, with only immaterial differences in connecting the hood and flanged ring, and in the position of the flanges or jaws.. On bill for

2.

BAME-INFRINGEMENT-·GLOVE FASTENERS.

In Equity. for defendant.

John R. Bemnett andW. B. H. Dowse, for coml'llainant.

an injunction and

account.

T. W. Clarke,

CoLT, J. The bill this case prays for an injUIiction, as well as an :account against the defEmdant. It seems to me that this is sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction, though the defimdant is a merelicensee; and it has been so held. McKay v. Smith, 29 Fed. Rep: 295; Hat Sweat Co. v. Porter, 34 Fed. Rep. 745; Seibert Co. v. Manning, 32 Fed. Rep. 625. The defendant company is the sole licensee of the complaincant of three patents granted to EdwinJ. Kraetzer for improvements in glove fasteners. The license contract was dated March 21, 1885, and is lltill in force. The present suit is for an account of the royalties due under the agreement, and an injunction, meantime, to restrain the defendant from using the patents in defiance of the agreement. Under these ·circumstances,' the defendant cannot and does not deny the validity of the Kraetzerpatents, but the defense of non-infringement is brought forward and relied' upon. The complainant insists that the defendant's fastener is an infringement of t4e second claim of Kraetzer patent No. 290,067, and the fourth -claim of Kraetzer patent No. 306,021. These claims are as follows: "(2) The combination of a catch. consisting of an inner and an outer plate, .a stud connecting said plates, and a shank attached to the outer plate provided with a ball and a spring-flanged eyelet, adapted to receive the ball of said catch. oSubstantillUy as described." "(4) The combination althe two disks, B. and C. and the knob, A,having its oShank extended through them and upset at its end against the lower of thi;lm. with an entire ring provided with two elastic flanges or jaws. and with a separate hood having two ears extending from its base-ring. as described. and between the said !langes or jaws, and bent against the ring. all being substantiallyas set forth." The complainant's fastener, made under the Kraetzer patents; is com" J>osed()ftwo button member secured to thennder fllipof a·

r,.:,

".

E

glove, and a flexible button-hole member secured to the upper flap, and of the button; 'Vhich adapttd\ t9?e pressed down upoll , it grasps In the jaws of its flanged ring socket. The button member consists of three partsi-:-a solid studorlmob formed into a baH at its upper end, anq having,a shank extending through two above and,. one beldw the flap of the 'tlieshank being upset at its lower end upon ,the lo.wer disk. The button-hole member consistsofa cap or hood separateofroID'the socket proper"llitld having two proJections or ears, a flanged ring having two elastic flanges or jaws, adapted to or spring, over the enlarged helld or stud, and olasp it around its neck. The button member of defendant's device seems almost identical with the Kraetzero The button-hole member of defendant's device is su,bstantially like that of K:raetzer. It has a separate cap or hood on the upper surface of the flap, and a flanged ring surface, havin.g two projecting jaws to slip over and embrace, the of the knob or stud in the same placedescribeu by Kl'aetzer. The differences of connection in the two devices of the hood end the or the different positions of the flanges 0t: jaws, are The ,whole substance of the Kraetzer invention is found in defendant's device. Nor does the prior state of the art so limit the Kraetzer patents that the defendant should go free, because the Kraetzer patents should not bll limited to the exact forms found described in the the defendllut should not be permitted to,esliJape by making,colorable or immaterial changes in construction whi1eretaining all the vital parts of Kraetzel"simprovements. Motion for injunction.is granted.

LOCKE 17. SMITH

et al.

(Jourt. D. Has,ac'hu,ett,. August 27. 1888.)
PATENTS Il'ORlNvENTroN8-INFRINGEMEN'rB-DAMPER REGUIlATORB.

Letters patent No. 835,080, granted January 26, 1886, to Nathaniel C. Locke·.. for an improvement in damper regulators, consist!! of a cOlIlbination of a diaphragm motor, a damper motor; and a valve so combined as to produce a dalIlper regulator of great sensitiveness. Held, in view of the prior state of the that, the only nove.lty is the mechanism of the valve wh,ich contl'ols the supply of actuatmg flUId to the damper motor, the valve bemg separate anddh3tinct from the piston of the damper motor, and that the patent is not infringe,.d]>.1 a, device constructed under the Spencer paten,t,sof September 29, 1885.anll.M;arch 23. 1886, in which the walve'casing is part, of the piston; such! piston beiDA' double acting, receiving the fluid at it!! center. and delivering ie at either w.itha arranged Ip ·.
','"

, In

'of P!'tent. ,JameS E.:)faynadier, ,fol.' complaina,nt. ,Thomaa ,.W. fordefenda,ut&.

Com,. J. ': "Thiss:uitis. brought, upon. plainant.

to; the com·· 26,.1886j:iil. for improv.e-.