c,opper sQhition or'theptocesscontempIatedby 'the AdaD1s inthey do employ alloy of copper which is deposited by ,the ordinary C;llectro-metallurgical process, and a view, because not necessary, of obtllining the very thin film called for \ by the Adams patent. ' Upon the facts as they appear to me in this case, it is manifestly my duty to denY'the present motion. Motion denied.
(CirCfj,it Oourt.. D. Ma88achUlettl. February 28, 1889.)
, The object of the inventiondes,cribed in letters patent No. 264.054, Issued September 12. 1882; to George ,R. Allen. is to provide means for a loaded or unbalanced spindle to move atit\l:lower end to find its true center of rotation. and thus avoid the effects of gyration; and claim 1 is for the spindle. support. ing tube, bolster tube, and step 'fitted loosely into the bolster tube, and , adapted to receive within it the end of the ,spindle."coml;Jined with the pin, also to hold ,step loosely. The pin the step from rotating witl1 the spindle, but allows it to movein the bolster tube, liS the foot of the spindle travels to find its true center of rotation; Held infringed by il. device which has in place of the piJ;l a spring, one, end bearing against a sho\llder on the step, and the other against a ",boulder inside the sUI>Porting tube, and the upper section of the supporting tube of which operates the same as ,the bolster tube,though made of, two metals,-iron' and brass. In the patent of 1880, t:be step is not restrained from rotatiO'l1. The object of the invention described in the ,Buttrick and Flanders patent of 1879 was to produce certain improvements in the surroundings of the spindle. so that it might be covered, protected" and kept, in 'PQsition while the step was removed. aJ;ld ,replaced, and might also be arrested at any time. There was DO statement that the device was intended to increase the speed of the spindle. or to de,crease itsgyratio'ns, and the step was, ·not described as'havin,g a latl!ral ,movement. ,:Neither invention was designed for use with a sleevewhirl IDovement, as in the Allen patent.. The Oraper patent of January 31, 1882, does not show the pin and step; Held no anticipation. ' ,
In Equity. Bill by the Sawyer Spindle Company againstChar1es G. Buttrick and others for the infringement of a patent. 'Oha'UnceyBmiih and Livermore & F'ish, fOl"complainant. Jam,es E. Maynadier and James H. Young, for defendants. C01./I', J .. The bill of complaint alleges that the defendants have infringed letterapatent No. 2,64,054, issued Septembeil 12, 1882, to George H. Allen for 'an improvement in spindle bearihgs. The obJect of the invention is to provide nieans whereby a loaded or unbalanced spindle may move fit its lower end 'to .find its true ceuter Of rotation, and 'thus avoi,d the effects due froin gyration. The invention consists of a spindle and supporting tube, combined with a bolster tube located therein, a. step placed loosely in the bolster tube, and a pin, fitting the stflP loosely,
to prevent. from .rotatingwith the spindle,yet the step to move in the bolster tube, asJhe foot of the spindle travels to find its true center of present controversy is. confined to the first of the :patent, which. as follows:
"The spindle, supporting tube, bolster tube, and tile step fitted lopsely into the holster tube. and adapted to receive within it the end the spindle. combined with the pin, f, to· also hold the step loosely, as ang for the purposes set
Th.e is for an improvement on, what are termed "self-centering" spiIlqlel'l' The characteristic of spindles is that they have to side loose bearings, which yield to the spindle as it vibrat,es from under the influence of an unbalanced load. The first spindle of this type which came into general use is found in the Rabbeth patent of May 4, 1880. Certain troubles were found incident to the Rabbeth device, owing to the fact that, when the spindle gyrated, the bolster moved with it, thus tending to tear the packing. The Allen patent is an improvement upon Rabbeth, and it (lonsists in carrying the step up into the bolster tube, and adding the restraining devices to prevent the step from turning with the spindle. In his speciffcation Allen states that he does not claim broadly a loose bolster tube held loosely by a pin, as that shown.lLIld claimed in a application for a patent, filed Oy him April 19, 1882. The question before us is whether Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, Buttrick and Fland.ers spindle, contain the combination of devices set faith iothe first claim. ?! the Allen patent. In of the pin, f, in the Allen device, the defendants have substituted a spring for the purr'oseofrestraining the revolution of the. step. One end of this spring bears against a shoulder on the step, and the other end against a Elhonlder on the inside of the supporting tube. This spring performs the same duty as the pin, though it may also perform other duties. A pin ora spring is commonly used to restrain the rotation of rods in various contrivances, and they maybe said to be the equivalents of each other. Again, the defen.dants deny that the upper section of what they term the "supporting tube" is in fact the boMertube of Allen. But this is not made out, because this upper section is a bolster tube, and opera,tes the same as Allen's. The fact that the defendants' bolster tube is made of two metals,-one iron and the other brass,-can make no differencej nor does it. make the brass lining of the tube the bolster tube, as contended for by the defendants, because both metals constitute but one tube. I fi,nd in defendants' contrivance, fir8t, a spindlej 8econd, a supporting tube; third, a bolster tube fast in the supporting tube; fourth, a step fitted loosely into the bolster tube, and hav:inga. bore in it to receive the end of thespindlej and, fifth, the spring and its shoulders to hold the step loosely, the latter being the equivalent of the pin and holes of the Allen device; and therefore it seems to me clear that the defendants infringe claim of the Allen patent. There is nothing in the prior art which serves to protect the defendants frolll;Jqis charge. In:the Mason patent of 1880 the step is not restrai.Qed from rotation. The object of the Buttrick and Flanqers 1879
patent WIl8 to produce certain improvements in the surroundings and bearings of the spindle by means of which it might be covered, protected, and kept in its position, while the step is removed and replaced for any purpose, and might also be arrested at any time in its motion when desired. There is no statement that the device was intended to increase the speed of the spindles, or to decrease their gyration.s. The step is not described as having a lateral movement. Neither the Mason, nor the Buttrick and Flanders structures, are designed for use with a sleevewhirl spindle of the Allen class. The Draper patent of January 31, 1882, does not show the pin and step of Allen, and is clearly, therefore, not an anticipation. Decree for complainants.
et ale ".
(Otreuit Oourt, E. D. N61JJ York. March 6, 1889.)
PA.TBNTS FOR INvENTIONS-AcTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT-AMENDMENT.
In a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent, complainant was defeated because he sued on one only of two patents relating to the same invention. The evidence introduced would be necessary under a bill based on the omitted patent. H6,d, that he should be permitted to amend by bringing in the other patent, and alleging its infringement, and that the case should be opened for taking additional testimony, but that relief should be granted only on condition that complainant give an undertaking to pay the expense of such additional testimony. including witness fees, mileage, master's or examiner's fees, and printing.
In Equity. Motion for leave to amend and take further proofs. The complainants in this case were defeated at final hearing because they declared only on one of the patents granted for tDeir invention. Ante, 682. Thereupon complainants moved for leave to amend the bill by declaring also upon the other patent, and charging infringement thereof, and to re-open the case for the purpose of letting in' such further evidence as may be necessary. James A. Hudson, for complainants, cited: Neale V. Neales, 9 Wall. 9; Tremaine v.Hitchcock, 23 Wall. 518; Hamilton v. Gold 00.,23 Fed. Rep. 563; U. S. v. Parrott, McAlI. 447; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 761,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 771. Briesen, Steel Knauth, for defendants, cited, (in addition:) Shield8 v. Barrow, 17 How. 144; Battle V. Insurance Co., 10 Blatchf. 426; SnJad v, McCoull, 12 How. 422; Clifford V. Coleman, 13 Blatchf. 210.
LACOMBE, J., (after stating th.6 facts as above.) The amendment asked for does not involve an entire change of the character of the action. It is still a suit for the infringement of the same invention as that touching which the evidence already taken was introduced. So much of that ev-