NATIONAL CASH REGISTER
dAfttnmIcATOR <\ R.
vits, whioh l'Iiakeit'clear that the courtsshouldl DQtgrarlt ltn injuncWtm in ,thi$'oose unless fully satisfied ·that the defendal'lts infringe the Callahan palent. This seems to be a case where it requires the full proofs, 'such as presented at final 'hearing, to properly determine the question ot'infringement. Motion'denied. '
STANDARD FOLDING·BEI> Co. fl.
KElilum d aZ.
January 8, 1890)
87 Fed. Rep. 693.
One WMpurchases a patented article.from the ownel' oBhe patent-rlghtfor 8 certain tel'ritoI'Y. has no right to sell the same, in the c0\l1'se qf trade, in tel,Titol'r for which another owns the exclusive territorial right; ,Following Bed 00. v. KeeTm-,
'*'On INVilNTIONB-TEmttToBIAL RIGHTS OJ' ASSIGNBB8.
In Equity. On final hearing. E. T. Rice, Jr., for complainant. <husten Browne, for defendants.
COLT, J. I see no reason in this ease to change the conclusions on motion for Ii preliminary inreached by the court upon the junction, as! reported in 37 Fed. Rep. 693, and I shall therefore direct a complainant, as prayed for in the bill. Decree for complainunt.' '. .,"
NATIoNAL" ." .
REGISTER Co. 'lI. BOSTON CASH INDIcATOR .. . Co. et ciZ.
(Olrcuit Oourt, D. Massachusetts. December 24, 1889.)
lNVENTIONS-,!.OTION :rOB In'RINGilMBNT .....INlUNOTION AGAINST OTHEB
.... .' In a suit for Infringement of-a patent, a court of equity has the power. upon petition of defendants, to restrain complainant from bringing further suits against the '. . Ppl'9hasel's or users of the article, ,will do so when the ,'. by defmdanti show t.hat the SUIts brought are wxatlousatld oppressIve.' .
In' Petition by defendants, in a suit for infringement of a patent, to restrain complainant from bringing futther suits against pur, chasers of-the patented a r t i c l e . , . · ,William A. Macleod, for complainant. Frederick P. F'ishj and William K.Richardson, for petitioners and :defondants.
J. : The power of a court of equity,by petition in the main suit against a manufacturer, to restrain a complainant from brinp;ingfurthcr
nmERAJ, REPORTER:, vol.
suits against purchasers .orusers of a patented article, Seems to be ·recogniZed in this country, a.nd to be founded upon sound principles of v. Stow.e1l, 16 Fed. equity. Ide v. FJngine 00:.,31 Fed. Rep. 901; Rep; 783; Birdaell v. Ma'r/,ufgcturing Co., 1 Hughes, (U. S.) 64. Also the unreported cases of National Cash Register Co. v. Bensinger Self-Adding Cash Register 00., decided by Judge BLODGETT in the northern district of Illinois, and Consolidated Store Service Co. v. Lamson CO'f/$olidated Store Service 00., decided by Judge NELSON of this district. Recognizing the existence of the power of this court to restrain the complainant, as prayed for, the 'only question which remains is whetherthe defendants affidavits which entitles them to this have made out a case upon relief. I think an examinatic>ll o'f'tHe affidavits shows that the numerous suits brought byth,eqomPlainaljlt against the custoIDElrs 9f the vexatiou!l'andoppressive,and that therefore an injunCtion I;\s.prayed !or., "n',; Injunction granted.
Co. et al. V. SHUTE et al. .' SA.ME v.'MATIllsdJi.'h 'iIi
(No. 2,671.) , .. 1, -' ')
, ;' . 'i
(OircW£t Oou'l1, D,,·Massa,ch1,tsjJftll. December 17, 1889.)
(Oircuit Oourt, D. New Hampshire. December 17,1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-BUTTON SEWING MACHINES.
Letters patent No. 236,350, for a machine for sewing shank-buttons on fabrics, 1881,'to,James B:.,:iMrley. and .othilrs. by a mael).i:ne manufactured under letters patent N0.268,869, Issued November 28, 1882, to Joseph Mathison and others. Following Moriey·Sewtng-1Hachine 00. v. Lancaster, 9l:iup. Ct. Rep. 2119.
In Equity. , BerijarnJi?r F; Thurswn and 'Ambr08elEastman, for complainants.' "',' 1 Jamea E. Maynadier Brait"', for defendants.
COLT,. J. . Upon an papers in theSe cases, I'think the petitions should be granted. Looking at the grounds upon which the supreme. court base their decisibn in Morley Swing-Machi1ie. Co'. v. ·La'J1caster,129U. S.263, 9 Rep. 299, lam of opinion thaLth:e Mathison No.3 machine comes within the scope of that· decision, and that it is an infringement of the second and thirteenth claims of the Morley,pJ!.tent;.".. I do notfeel in ,view of.the opinion bf the supreme court, to again construe the Morley patent, or compaare'what,is covered by it with defendants' machine. With the past litigation upon :the Morley patent before me, it·isSufficient' thatlshouMsta,w p:l.y'oon.clusions. , . . '"