derived at the hearing of the cause, adverse to the theory that the inventions were patented for the benefit of Dalzell, has ripened into a conviction after a critical examination of the record. When the Fahys Watch.Case Company employed Dalzell, and acquired a license under the patents, its officers knew that the inventions were in use at the factory of the complainant, and that Dalzell had made the apparatus there for making the crown cores while an employe of the complainant. Its officers entertained the negotiations with Dalzellata time when they supposed he was still an employe of the Dueber Company. They made no inquiries of the Dueber Company, nor even of Dalzell himself, to ascertain Whether the complainant had or claimed to have any right to use'the'inventions. Under these circumstances, upon the authority of Prime v. ManujacturingCo., 16 BIlltchf. 453, (deCided 'in this circuit,) the Fahys Watch-Case Company is chargeable with constructive notice of the complainarlt's rights, and must be held responsible to the extent of the knowledge which its officers might have obtained by making inquiry. A decree is ordered for the complainant.
t1. THE WILLIAlf POWELL
D.01l.io, W; D.
May 4, 1889.)
. , . The Seibert Oil-Cup Company; as owner of certain patents. Including pat· ent No. 138,243, granted to John Gates, and the Detroit Lubricator Company entered into an agreement that neither should sue the other or its agents under any of the patents then or thereafter to be owned by it. and that neither should imitatli the styles or shapes of lubricators made by the other. and that in consideration of the payment of certain royalties by the Detroit Company the Seibert Company would not prosecute the Detroit Company. its agents or vendees, for any infringement of the Nicholas Seibert patent, which was owned by the Seibert Company, and which it alleged the Detroit Company bad been.and was infringing. Held. that the contract did not give the Detroit Company an exclusive licenllll to use the Gates '8. SAME-ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT---EvIDENCE.· / In an action by the' Seibert Company against a licensee of the Detroit Com· pany fer an infringementof the Gates patent. a contract by which the Seibert -Company had released certain purchasers from the Detroit Company from all claims on account of their use of lubricators. to which contract neither the Detroit Company nor the licensee defendant was a party, is inadmissible.
1.:PATlllNTS FOR lNvENTlON8-LICBNSas-CoNSTRUCTION.
GeOrgeJ.Murray, for defendant.
Edmund Wetmore, J. H.Rayrrwnd, and Peck « Rector, for complainant.
Action for infringement of patent;
Sa-GE, J. The complainant sUes as llesignee for infringement of patent No. 138,243, granted to John Gates, 29th of April, 1873, for improvements iIi lubricators for ·steam-engines. The validity of the patent, altDotighdenied in the. answer, ,is not contested.· The lubricators manufactured and sold by the defendant contain the complainant'sin-
SEIBERT CYL1:l'DE'R OIL-CUP CO. V. THE WILLIAM POWELL CO.
vention. The defense rests solely upon the following facts: December 1, 18R3, the' complainant and the Detroit Lubricator Company (which was the owner of patents claimed to anticipate complainant's) entered into a contraet that neither party should sue the other, or directly or indirectly authorize suit against the other, or its agents or vendees, under any of the patents then or thereafter to be owned by it; that neither should imitate the styles or shapes of lubricators made by the other; and that, whereas the Seibert Company was the owner, in whole or in part, of certain letters patent granted to Nicholas Seibert for improvements in lubricators, and the Seibert Company claimed, and the Detroit Company denied, that the Detroit Company had infringed and was infringing the same, the Detroit Company should thereafter pay toyalties, as specified in the agreement, to the Seibert Company, so long as the Seibert Company should perform its covenants and stipulations, and during the life of the agreement, which was to continue in force until the expiration of the Seibert patents; and in consideration thereof the Seibert Company agreed not to molest the Detroit Company, its agents or vendees, by suit or otherwise, for any alleged infringements of said Nicholas Seibert patents, outside of the New England states. The Seibert Company also agreed not to authorize the use of the Nicholas Seibert patents outside of the New England states, except as above. This agreement amounted to a license to the Detroit Company, and it included the Gates patent. Oil-Oup Co. v. Lubricator Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 216. The,defendimt is a licensee of the Detroit Lubricator Company. The license, upon its fa<:e, is limited to patents owned by that company. The lubricators manufaotured by the defendant, although different in style and shape from that shown and described in the Gates patent, and from those made by the Seibert Company, are nevertheless infringements oitha Gates patent. The contract of December 1,1883, does not grant to the Detroit Company an exclusive lioense for the manufacture or use of the Gates patent. That feature of the oontract appears only in the stipulations relating to the Nicholas Seibert patents. This conclusion disposes of the entire defense. The contract in evidence between the Seibert Company and the Western Railroad Association cannot avail the defendant. The Detroi.t Company and the defendant are alike strangers to it. It is only an agreement by the Seibert Company to release upon terms the railroad companies composing the association from any and all claims on account of their use of lubricators purchased from the Detroit Company or from its successors, assigns, agents, or licensees. This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider whether the contract of December 1, 1883, between the Seibert Company and the Detroit Company has been rescinded. A decree will be entered for the complainant, for an injunotion and account.
vol. 38: "
PATENTS FOB INVENTIONs-..,-INFRINGEMENT:-;-OVERSHOE .BUCKLE.
Claims 1,2. and Sof.letters patent No.S26,S57, to J..J. Unbehend. dated Sep. tember 15, 1885. afe for the tongue of a buckle for overshoes, hinged between two plates, and guards across the' Eidges of the plates in front and rear of the hinge-pin of the tongue. The invention was an improvement on Unbehend's prior patent, No.. 80/'i.410, Septembet 16. 1884. which was for a buckle a tongue hinged between the leaves of a double flexible plate bya cam-shaped hinge-pIn entering between the plates,' and having its bearings in transverse recess8sclosed in front; The improvement consisted. in the guards to retain the in place, and to prevent lateral displaCement of the plates in reference" to each other. In buckle the inside edges of the lower plate. are turned upward, and· form: flanges, in each. of which a notch is made. opening upwar;d. anll pivots of the tongue re.st in the. potches as their bearings. ' Hem. tb.at'the guards in the Unbehend buckle must be in addition to the hinging device" and, as there· are no guards in addition to the hinging device in defendant's buckle, there. is no infringement.
In Equity. Suit by Judson L. Thomson &.00. against the,Smith & Griggs Manufacturing' Company and another. George W. Hey and William E. Simonds, for plaintiffs. George E. Terry, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, ',T. This is·a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 326,357, dated 'September 15; 1885; to Jacob J ·. Unbehend,for an improved spring-clasp or buckle for "Arctic" overshoes. The opinion upon the motion in this case for a preliminary injunction recited the first five claims of the patent. contained a description of the patented and the defendant's devices, stated wherein the patented device 'was an improvment upon that described in the patentee's earlier patent, and pointed .out what was thought to be a. radical difference between the buckles which' are the subject of thiS controversy. 32 Fed. Rep. 791. It will not be necessary to rel>ettUhedescriptive part of these details. Upon this hearing, the validity of the fourth and fifth claims was not urged. The sole question is that of infringement of the first three claims, aJ1dthe decision of the question rests upon, the construction which shall be 'placed upon them. . 'the first and broadest claim is in these words: "In a clasp, the tongue hlilged between two plates,· a'nd guards across the -edges of the said plates, in·front and rear of the hinge·pino1l the tongue. subas and for the ,PU,rPOll,ll set . The plaintiff contends that the only limitations to be placed upon the literal meaning of this language and of kindred language in the two other claims are that the two plates are to give spring action to the tongue, and that the hinge-pin is to be cam-shaped. Thus construed, or, in other words, if it is immaterial how the tongue is hinged between the two plates, whether in bearings like those of the patented buckle, or