Itrongly as limiting this construction. The point covered.there relates E!Q;uivalents ot 8ubstitutes. That case once troubled, a good deal. It was in, the first patent case that I ever tried, when I was not very famUi$rwith the subject. It was pressed on xne,very earnestly,oasholding that the doctrine of mechanical equivaJents ,or substitutes had no application to improvements in patents, or patents for combinations of old elements, and only related to original in:v:entions new devices. The point Wall argued and pressed very earnestly. 'rhe Ipo!le language used in the opinion, perhaps well enough as rel",te(1, to. ,the. facts of that case, affQrdedsome ground for sUc;Jh a.contention.:! not see why the <ioctrlne should not be applicable to co;wJ:,ipations and improvements to original patents and I fejectedthaUheo:ry. · 1 was afterwarp.s fully sustained in the view that,J toqk, in the ca'3e of fl,ov,fd v. !(ea, 15:Wa!l. 192; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 555, andQiay. Wells, Wall. 28, where the court stated in very decided ferms that of equivalents was as applicable to improvements and combinations of old elements, as to original inventions and new devices. defendants in this ClJ'se, however.lltated, really inthat doctrlne, whether equivalents in the character :of. substitutes in patents for improvemellts. They it is so. very dil:!tinctly,stated in those cases. In view, Ido n9t is anything in the prior patents referred t() which sllQuld (lut'out the claim, or lim,it it so as.to thia improvement or: avoid an infringemento:, lamaf the opinion that that claim i. also inffinged,.The result isthat,,(llaimNo. J, in patent 227,926is infringed,.spdclaitll. No.1, in patent 290,358 is infringed. In regard to the other 1 find ill; favofof the defendl'nt, that is to say, no infringement is satisfactoril,y,proved.· Defendan,tsmay infringe hereaftef, but as to this case an Jnfringement is not8l!-ti!lfactorily pfoven. Mr. Milkm. That was the set up containing .the T slot.· PM· Court. Yes, the defendant's mac1line evidently has the T slot. but it does not appear that it has theothef of the combination. The testimollY,iEl, very brief andvefy loose. It undoubtedly had aT slot, but,therea,re two or three.:othe", elements. that it does not torily.appeRf tbfl,t. the
11. BOS'1'ON CASH IND!OATOR
'."' ' ' .' '.",
& RJD. '
(Owcuit Court, 1).
'.: ' '- .
, · 1
; ,,' .'
lOB· ,!NlVNQ1ION. . Where it appears that tile patent incantroversy is only a year old at ttme of suit ',·lor,' 'iri'tringemen,tI" .the, camp,lainan,t fails to show; e,ither a P,nor adjudioation, SUIItB,lninltthe ,vaUdlty of the patent,.or publio acquiescence uppn whioh a pres'qm})l 'tion o£validity may be based, and the defendant has signed astipulatiQn agreeing 1101. to make or sell any instruments emoodying the deviCes ·alleged toinfrinp Ul. patell,t iD,iUlt UDtU an wijl be denied. . ;
CuIU t7. GRONLUND. .
In Equity. On motion for injunction. William A. Macleod and Peck &: Rector, for comJllainnnts. Livernwre, Jilish &: Richardson, and Albert M. Moore, for defendants. COLT, J. . In view of the fact that the patent in controversy was only a year old when this suit was brought, the complainant failing to show, either a prior adjudication sustaining the validity of the patent, or public acquiescence upon which a presumption of validity may be based t and in view of the further fact that the defendant has signed a stipulationagreeing not to make' or sell any cash registers embodying the devices alleged to infringe the patent in suit until final hearing, I must decline' to grant any injunction. Motion denied.
(CirCUJf,t Cown, So D. New York.
. .In an action for the infringement of copyright, it appeared tbat defendantll bad, , ·in publisbing a SwedishcEnglish dictionary. takE'ln. certain words frpm a similar AAd. prior publication by plahltiff·. copying plaintiff's definitions, and, in the ·words of different terminations, from tbesam.e root, bad omitted the root, leaving it·to be understood. Held,: that plaintiff's copyright would protect his literary WQfklli composing the no matter how short they were, and the mere oJI\ission of the root 1Il words of ,different terminations, from the same root. would not avoid the infringement. . . ', 9. SAlolB-PROVINCE OJ!' JURY·. r In such case it is solel1 within the province of the jury to find whether the defendants had copied plaintiff's book. B. SAMB-lbASURE OJ!' DAlolAGBB. In an action for damage!! for the infringement of a copyright, plaintiff proved that the' sale of his book oad been decreased by the issuing of defendants' book to the extent of 1,600 copies. He also proved by one of the defendants tbat defendants had disposed of about 700 copies of their book lli this country, and aillo proved that in another case the same defendant had stated that they had of 8,000 , copies of their book in this country. Held, tbat this statement of defendant could not be made available against the other defendant, a corporation, even though he was an officer ot such corporation, and plaintlif was entitled to damages only tor the diminution of his sale& .
CoPTRIGll'l'-WHAT WILL DE.
At Law. Action. by Otto Chilsagllinst Gustave Gronlund et ale for infringement 'of qopyrightand damages. Walter ,M. R08ebault, for plaintiff. H.'M.. Ge8Cheidt, fordefe.ndants.
Wm:E;1IER, J. This cause has now been heard -on a motion by the defendants to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff fQr 82,500 damages and for infringement of his copyright of a Swedish-English for the forfeiture to him of copies of the defendants' infringing work in th.eir pqssess,ion. The principal grounds urged in support qf the motion arethaLthe verdict is contl'ary to the. evidence, and that the damages \T.41F.no.3-10