,(O:trcuit COU'ft, E. D.
Patent No.ll86,941, issue4 July 81, 1888, to SamUel E. Thomas, for a process of attaching,wroUght lead lipeto C8st metal, applicable "to water·closetpipes and in many eth!!l' instances, 'is aJ;l ;Infringement on patent No. 871,107, issued October 4, 1887, to S'amuel E. Thomas, for attaching wrought lead pipes to cast metal for "wallte.;tl'aps.for basina, closets, etc. II .!' ,
.TO DBNY VALU)ITY OF PATBNT.
A who .has assigned his patent cannot deny its valid;ity, as aga!nst hla . 6811ignee; on 'the ground that it infringes another patent preVlously acquired by _.' .him" application fill' lihe patent is suJnciently broad to include the f:!ne. .. .' .
"lIn 'Equity'.J.Bill for injunction. '., . 'Kiw.uth,for complainants. Frost&:' Cc)e',fordefendant·..
... ;1':[,: 'This to rest1'l1in infringement of ent issued: JUly '31, 1888, for process of castillg.. As stated in the cla-bn, theinvention,is a new method of attaching 8; wrought lead tnetW, which process consists in "first dipping !theend of pipe to' into molten· tin, and in then inserting the tinned end of the 'mould 'iii:#hich the casting'is tobe made, 'the said pipe fotniillg'pitr1; ofJ'the wall of the' mould cavity, and in then casting the the end of the lead pipe;" .rri the specifiootion it is stated that the'procesa}s applicable' to casting flanges on ,water-closet pipes, in> ri:iallY",other .instancl*l;. 'The. defendant makes waste-traps which are (plainty . itlfriligeinents of this patent, claiming the. right to do so under an. e rliel'patent, No. 371,107, issued to' him'Octo'ber 4, 1887. lt The third claim of that 'l)atentis in the following word$:
"(3) The method herein specified of forming lead traps, con8isting in placIng in the moUld and around' !fhe core apiece of wrought lead' pipe. with' the _ndportion·tnereof andcastlng into the mould and around the cores the metal that furm8 the body of the trap and theoutlet·pipe. so that the with the end of the wrought pipe" and the J;(fipectiye . If.. ' .
The'improvement, as stated in tbespecification, "relates to wastetrapsfot baSins, closets, etc:." Whether or no, by the use of this language,' the earlier 'patente:erestricted his right to enforce· his monopoly, it ilJ evident that there would be no inthereafterapplyingthe very processwhich he therein described for making a waste-trap to awater"closet pipe. Against the complainants' claim for infringement, therefore, the older patent would be a complete defense, establishing conclusively the invalidity of the patent upon which they sue. Can the defendant, however, avail of that defense? The defendant was himself the patentee of the patent sued upon, and assigned it to the complainants, May 12, 1887. His assignment described his invention as a new and improved process of casting metal to wrought lead pipe) for which he was about to
make application for a patent,andstated that the applicationhad been to by him on the B.ame day, May 12, 1887. The description and claim in said application was broac! enough to cover the application of the process to the manufacture both of waste-traps and of water-closet pipes. Reciting that complainants were desirous ofacquirjng [his] entire interest in' said invention and the letters patent .there(orwhen granted," he assigns to them all "right in and· to the said inventiop, and, any letters patent that may be granted therefor." Four days later (May 16, 1887) the application was filed, and the patent issued July 31, 1888. The other patent, which describes (as to this claim) the same invention, was applied for by defendant, January 3, 1887, and ,issued to, him, October 4,1887. To allow defendant, in view of the plain lanIDtage of. his to shelter himself behind. a patent which vitill.tes the alleged invention that he assigned to the ants, would be unfair, and' a defense not sanctioned by the' authorities. Adee v. T,hornas. ante, 342. Mllchtestimony was introduced as to prior transactions between the no application 'to reform the assignments was made, by crossbill or otherwise, and that instrument will therefore be taken as'determining the legal relations of the parties. Decree for complainants.
et al· ..,. TIIOHAll.
(OirCUttt Oourt, E. D. New Yorlc. February 17,189O.)
In Equity:. BID for injunction. :Brie8en&Knauth, for complainante. .JIron & 006, for defendant.
UOO!llBI!l,J.. This is a suit to restrain tbe infringement of letters patent No. 890,821, beingf9r; article of manufacture produced by tile process de80rlbed in tbe patent 8ued uPQnin Allee v. Thomas. ante, 846, (decided to-day.) Tbefacta and oircum.tances are tbe same in tbis case, as in that, and the conclUsion reached .. the same. Decll'eI for complainant.
, SARGENT f1. BARRY
(OireuA.t Oourt, S. D. IIYWa. E. D. February 21, 1890.)
The tbird olaimof letters patent N:o.199,582, for an improvElmentin waterolosets. issued January 22, 1878. desoribes an enlargement of. the drain or waste pipe, 01' terminal ·of tbe traps, so as to form a obamber with an air-vent. and provides for.a disoharge for tbe downward or eduotion limb oUhe traps nearly on a level with tbe bottom of the trap and its seal, so that a column of water of 8uftloient length to overbalance tbe seal cannot aooumulate in the downward opening limb of t,b.e trap, and, no, action oan occur... Defendants manufaotured a tr:ap in .wbiob, at tbe upPer bend of tbe B-shaped trap tbey placed an air-pipe,. for the purJlO86 of securing &' of air on the upper bend of tbe aiphoa. thus preyer