39. erty.in tbe work" . iW'hea,ton iV.; 8 Pet. 591 ; Merrell v. Twel' 104. U. S. tb:esecon,ditiol1s. thl3 .'statutesreqQire the deposit of a printed'cppy. of ,theti;t.le of thework,'before ,publica'tion in the proper the office of clerk of the district court of the autrar, and now the librarian of of the district of. congress. ,A. literaloompliance is not requisite; a. substantial compliance ii;!. Callaghan y. ¥yers, 128.D. S. 617, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. '177.; Donnel/ey v.Ivers, 20 ;Blatchf.. 381,18 Fed. 592; Bakel' v. Taylor, 2 Blatehf,82; Jacksonv. Fed. Rep. 15. A verbal difference between the registeredJitJeand the published title would not necessarily the variance is so material that the invalidate the substantial identity l!etween th,e two titles is doubtful, and might deceive the public into,the belief that they refer. to different publications and themes, it is fatal. It is patent that there is such a material variance in the present case unless a;J.lthe title, except "Under the GasLight," can be disregarded. This is not permissible. It will hardly do to segregate w4at the author has designated and deposited for registry as the title of his work as a unit into parts, and treat one part as the name and the other as descriptive matter, and eliminate the latter as a part of the title. If such ..an analysis were ever permissible, it .could not well be made in the present case, because it is impossible to <liscriminatebetween what is the, .descriptive matter and what is the name. The drama might have been called "Under the Gas-Light," or Drama of Life and Love in These Times," or" A Romantic Panorama of the Streets and Homes of New York," and either designation would be equally appropriate as a name or as descriptive matter. When two such names or descriptive terms are incorporated into the title, each becomes an integral part of it, and it may be as reasonably contended that one part of the title can be dropped out as that the other can be. The motion for an injunction is denied.
MAP & PUB. Co. v. DAKIN. PUB. Co. et al.
(Circuit Court, N. D. California.
June 10, 1889.)
Complainant sold a copyright insurance map to l;I. & 1r1.. who employed' defendants to correct it. by reason of changes from time to time in buildings, etc., affecting risks. Defendants, in making such corrections, used pallters on complainant's map, and retraced portions of said map, and in some inlltances reproduced whole, sbeetsof said map, by relithographing it. Held that, while C,oUld the map' by putting thereon their pasters .of such correctlOps, neyertheless It was an mfrmgement to retrace any ma:terIal part of complainant's map, or to' reproduce :auy material part thereof in making such correctioUlj. ' Complainant, in such case,'is ehtitled to an interlocutory decree enjoining further infringements, 8.Ild to an aCCQunting for damages.
2,. SAME-llIrJ,UNCTION-:-:-AccQUN ,TJNG1',' .
Application for injunction.
SANBORN HAP & PUB. CO.
l>AKIN' i'VB. CO.
Langhorne « Miller, for complainant. Van Ness & Roche, for defendants.
SAWYER, J., (orally.) This is a suit for the infringement of a right of a map showing the improvements on property and on the rounding property as affecting the risks for the benefit of fire insurance companies, so that they can have the map at hand in their offices, and know the character of their risks, which are noted on the map. This map is copyrighted by the Sanborn Map & Publishing Company. That company sold a copy of its map, or book of maps, I should say. (each page covers one or more blocks,) to Hutchinson & Mann. Hutchinson & Mann made corrections on it, as the risks changed from time to time, and they procured (the defendant) the Dakin Publishing Company to go over the field, note the changes, and make the corrections on the map. That company made the corrections by putting on pasters, showing the changes made, on the map which Hutchinson & Mann had purchased from the Sanborn Map & Publishing Company, and often by retracing and reproducing portions not changed' by pasters. It is claimed that defendants, at the request of Hutchinson & Mann, had a right to do that. The owners certainly had a right to do anything they pleased with the map purchased from complainant so far as making changes and putting on pasters is concerned; but they did more than that. They reproduced portions of the map, sometimes nearly a whole sheet. When the corrections were so many that they found it cheaper and better to make out a sheet than to make the corrections on it by pasters in the book, they did so, and then relithographed it, and reproduced the page, multiplying the copies, and often, doubtless, sU)'Jplying the copies to other companies having cOll1plainant's maps <:ir book of maps. While they had a right to put on pasters, cut the map to pieces, and destroy it, they had no right to retrace or reproduce and multiply any material part of the map. In some instances they took whole sheets, made several changes in them, relithographed those sheets soamended, and 'used them and doubtless furnished them to others to use,.' If they can do thl;l,t on one sheet, they can do it on two, three, or fouf, and finally reproduce the whole book, availing themselves of the plaintiff's works /j,S to all except the changes. If they can reproduce it once, they can do it a dozen times. If they can do it for one man they can do it for every insurance company, and multiply the work indefinitely to the great injury of the owner of the copyright. In my judgment the reproduction, the retracing, or relithographing of any material part of the map is an infringement of the copyright. To the extent of the reproduction of complainant's work, defendants are 'liable for an infringement, and there must be a decree restraining them from so infringing. There will be a reference to the standing master to ascertain the profits in pursultnce of these It is an infringement to retrace or reproduce -any material portion of the map. The mere putting on of the pasters lind destroying the sheet, without reproducing any part of it, I do not 'think is an infringement. An accountprinciple. ing will be 'taken in accordanbe'
SAFE-DEPOSIT. CO. LIGHT Co.
et al. v. NEW
PATENTS F(lR RATUS.
GAS PHOCESS AND
Letters patent No. 167;847, .issued September 21, 1875, to Thaddeus S. C. Lowe, for an "improvement in rrocess of and apparatus for the manufacture of illuminating or gas,' contain a process for the manufacture of water·gas, containing but little nitrogen. The presence of nitrogen in illumi· wl)en: it amounts to 9 per cent. or more, it nating gas is deleterious, amounts to a serious fault. The feature of the process consists in producing the gas in a close chamber,-that is, one from which the air is excluded,-or by an alternating. as distinguished: from a continuous, process. All of the essential apparatus was old,exoept the fixing chamber, which is so arranged as to be heated internally by the products of combustion that escape from the generator and envelop the refractory material. Held that, as the invention introduced a very desirable advantage into the process of making illuminating gas, by which the expense is greatly lessened, the facts that the older inventions, which are now claimed to be susceptible of being modified by mere mechanical skill into the one in question, remaitled without modification until the patentee made it"and that his improvement at once commended itself to those skilled in the art, are sufficient to show patentable invention.
Bill for infringement of letters patent.
B. F. Thurston and E. N. Dickerson) Jr.) for complainants. John R. Bennett, for defendant.
WALLACE, J.. This suit is founded upon the patent granted to Thaddeus S. C. Lowe, No. 167,847, ·dated September 21, 1875, for "improvelinent in process. of and apparatus for the manufacture of illuminating or heatii1g gas.": The complainants allege infringement by the of the first claillj1 of the patent. That claim is as follows: "(1) For .the manufacture. pf illuminating and heating gas, the process of which consists of dropping or other:wise admitting in limited quantities, continuol1s1y or i.ntermittently, oils or other carbonaceous substances, liqUid or soild, onto the top of.a thick massof coal or other carbonaceolls substance, in a state of incandescence, in a, close chamber previously heated by direct internal combustion, with or without the introduction of steam, and then, for the purpose of superheating and fixing the gases of said chamber, passing them from saiq,qhamber into and through a second chamber, which also has been heated by direct internal combustion, subas set forth." . . . This claim two inveLltions, each of which is a process in the sense that it involves the treatment of materials by successive steps conducted by means of combination of devicf\s. Each process involves the use of apparatus which consists essentially of a cupola or generator, a·su perheater or fixing ChI1Iu,1;Jer having specified characteristics, and certlJ,in pipe connections f9r air, or. air and steam, into the gen.erator, and canying gases generated there to the superheater. The .superheater is. fillep. with .refractory material, such as loosely-laid firebrick, and iEl heated by the hot gases which are produced in the gener-