UPTON fl. WAYLAND.
the ends of the prong, but the entire slender prong i8 intentionally bent. The die'has no system of similarly arranged planes. The detimdant construes the patent to be for a set of radially placed inclines, having their faces in opposite directions; the inclines being arranged either in two equal sets, bending the prongs away from each other in each set, or in pairs which bend the adjoining prongs towards each other. If a die contained, in connection with non-radially placed inclines, a single pair of radially placed inclines, which in fact performed the office which the Richardson die performs, I should be disposed to regard such a die as an infringer, although it did not have a complete set of Richardson inclines. But if a die, having irregularly placed inclines, cont?.ins also two radially placed inclines, which are or are not isolated from each other. but which do not perform the office which the Richardson die was designated to perform and does perform, I do not tllink that such a die, although containing radially placed planes,' is an infringing die. These inclines cannot do the work of the Richardson die upon the Richardson plate or upon the Richards plate, because they bend the entire shank. If the shank or plug of the Richardson prong should be bent, the heelplate would be injured or' destroyed. The Richards die is designed to bend the entire prong, and is therefore a different thir.'6 from the Richardson die. The bill is dismissed.
(Oircuit (Jourt, 8. D. New York. November 8, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRTNGEMENT-PRELDUNARY INJUNCTION.
The validity of letters patent No. 348,969, for a lamp-wick raiser, issued September 14, 1886, to Leonard Henkle, not having been adjudicated or recog· plzed by the public, a preliminary injunction to restrain their iIifringement willnot be granted in a suit inw1ich the patentable novelty of the invention fairly'contested.
The 'subject of said plltentbeing one of nine patented improvements em· bodied in the "Rochester lamp." the use of such lamps by the public. with 8cquiepcence in the exclusive right of the owners of the patellts, is not a rec· ognition of the validity of this particular patent.
In Equity. On motion for an injunction. This is an action by Charles Upton and Edward Miller & Co. against Chandler N. Wayland and Thomas B. Kent for alleged infringement of letters pateIitNo. 348,969, for a lamp-wick raiser, issued September 14, 1886, to Leonard Henkle, and reissue No. 17,090, d<l.ted February 81 1887. o. and H. M. Brigham, for complainants· .Edwin H. Brawn and Joshua Pusey, for defendants.
W AJ,J,ACE. J. An examination of the dPDositior, and exhibits used upon. the motion for a preliminaryinjunct:..n does not disclose anything
in the facts of the case to exoopt it from the application of the ordinary rule by which such an L,junction is not granted upon a patent of recent date, which has not been adjudicated when the patentable novelty of the improvement desoribed in it is fairly contested, and there has been no well-defined or significant recognition of the validity of the patent by the public. The "wick-raiser" which is the subject of the patent is one of nine patented improvements embodied in the "Rochesterlamp." These lamps have been extensively dealt in by jobbers, and used by the public with acquiescence in the exclusive right of the owners of the patents. but this is not cogent evidence of recognition of the novelty, or value of the wick-raiser, or the validity of the patent therefor. Non cQn8f.at that recognition is not due to the other patented improvements. The motion is denied.
. CLOW 'lJ. BAKER
PA,TENTB FOR INVENTIONS-AcTION FO:\! TERFERENCE PROCEEDING.
Depositions taken for the applicant fu!"" patent in interference proceedings pending in the patent-office.may, upon a proper showing of inability to retake them, be read upon the hearing of a bill by the successful applicant to deelare invalid a patent issued to the contestant, though one of the defendants. assignee of part, of contestallt's rights, received his assignment before the interference proceedings were had, arid was n'ot a party thereto.
But where the only reasons urged in support of the motion' to allow such depqsitiot;ls to be so read are an indefinite allegation of complainant's. ppverty, and that the witnesses are so scattered that to retake their depositions will be expensive, and'from an inspection of the depositions it appears. ,that 8 large, part of the testimony wall complainant's own,and that the greater number of the witnesses resided in the district in which the bill is pending when their depositions were tlliken before, and their present residence is not shown, the motion will be denied. "
In Equity. On motion to use depositions. , BillbyH. A. Olow against George O. Baker, the Baker Wire Company, and others, to declare invalid a patent issued to defendant Baker. Cole, Me Vey &: Clark, for complainant. Gummin8 &: Wright, for defendants.
J. ,The bill in the present is filed for the Pllrpose of p:\'ocllring a decree declaring .inyalid a patel1t issue9, to George O. Baker tor a wire-barbIng machine, on the ground that the complainant the prior inventor of the same, and to the ,bel1efits thereot\ undel letters patent issueq. to complainant. It appears that ill Ml!orch, 1885, when the application of complainant for a patent was pending before the 'patent.offiee,an interference was declared with patent No. 295,513; isaued to Ge9rge..Q. Baker, and a h,earingthereofin the, USUtl} form: was, bad ,be-