:, 'FEDERAL' REPOR1'ER, vol, 43.
after,the q1rechons anA ,patent No. grant.e'd to F\.''\X:, lie Aodoupt fr6tU'aJ;l inspection of Ulrich's ,drawmgs and that princIple pf the, complainant's mMhi:Dehas beenltdopted in thedrawings,of that mar cHine. It is true thltt'the Ulrich'niaehine, instead of having three recessed standards to support the in' a horizontal position bas an witl1inwhich thetruss-ho?pa are placed; but this iron pot in no way differs in its operation from the Qomplainant's frameQr standards. ,The drawings of the UlJ;'ich, patent, 'Would seem to indioateltbat the bottom of ,the tub issoHd or integral with its sides, but the'pr8of $hQwsthat the lttachhies used by the defendant and which are Ulrioh :n? bottOm is used the same as IS proVIded for In the complainant's machme, so that, I see no escape for tbe defendan t upon tbe issue of' non-infringement:,:'The pot with 'the 'bottomrenioved is certainly nothing but the equivalent: of tbe complainant's recessedstalldards for supporting the ti'uss-hohps, and, as undoubtedly the defendant bas found itlpractical 'WOrking that II. remova!?lebbttom is necessary to the successful Use of the devic&,fheyhaveremoved'the bott6m,nnd conformed to the of anoperativEr'machine under the complainant's patent.' F'Or'these reasons I 'find tbat':thedefendallts baveinfringed, as charged'jin ihe bill of complaint, arid a decree maybe entered aecordingly,· 'With a 'reference toa master to inquire as to the damages.
! .".,' " ' I '.
' After & patent; the infringement of Which has been enjoined, exp\res, the Injnnction will dj,ssolved withouli reference 1io such articles as were manfactured the patennvas alive. The paten tee may recover damages for Buch acts of infringement. ". "
(OircuitOourt, 8. D.ldwa. June 29,1888.)' ' : ,: ' TERM.
' ,Westinghouse J. Fairchild Carpenter for the 'of complainant's patent.'. ., J. SnO'liJden. Bell, Nathaniel French,· George H. (Jhl'iBty, William Bak6weU, £or- complainant. .', Banning & Banning, for defendant. Before Justice, and LOVE,'J.
On motion to
MILLER,';Justice.' We are of tbe opinion that theniotion ought to be 'granted. : The, attorney for tbe plaintiff practically concedes from the decisions ofthecourt8 on tbat suhject that tbe motion to dissolve the iJ;ljunction sho'UldJbe granted on aeCOUl1t of the expiration of the patent which expire,'! a few days ago with the expiration Of a prior patent. He, bowever, insists thatthlfinjunction should be 'continued as
of those articles which were miulufactureu and sold while the patent was alive,the manufacture ofwhich was an infringement Of this patent; ,that he should have the benefit of having forbidden them while theplttent was in existence; and that the injuMtionshoulclbe continued as to the sellingor:using of those manufactures, notwithstanding the expiration of the patent. We are of the opinion that with the expiration.of ,his patent the ,plaintiff's 'right to forbid anybody to make, USe the articles to which, this invention refers expires. Hit:l sell, monopoly is continued for 17 years bylaw, or whatever period the la-tv his patent to run. That monopoly isagainstthe making, selling, or ul!ingof articles., He has the benefit of that mOllopoly, undhas bad that, with regard to those articles in which he no.w IlSks to be further. p)'otected. He may recover the damages he hassustained,in this suit, w,hich is still periwllg intbis court. He may recover .for the daIJ:lllges, which Were inflicted before the injunction was brought. And he, ,tbat the court l!hallenjoin the sale and use of those articles for, w4ichheexpeots to get damages. Speaking for myself;;.......;.andalso fdr Judge LoVE,.:-r do, :not Qelieve thll:t is the true doctrine' on this subject. are, BQme particuJar: circumstances showing that the use of thIs patenteda,rti<l1e was an experiment to see whetheritcould be used qess(uU.y iQtbiscountry; and, under all the circumstances, we are disinclined to':'.Jnake any mpdification of the,motion to _dlve.the'injunction, d.iasolve h absolutely.
SEABOARD COASTING CO. "'. THE GULF STREAM.
S. D. Nl'JW York. pctober
,'r9 STOt' AND BACK.'
The ,G. 8."on a coUl'86cof S. by W., made botb Qolored lights of the , :It. half a point l>Dher starboard bow., ISba thereupon starboarded,an'd ran until Jlhe shutout the redlight, but soon after f.t reappeared, when the G.' S. 'Ilard but co)lision occurred soon after: anyti!De slackened Speed. Held. that the vessels were on crossmgcourses,and, under of the collision rules, it was the duty of the G. S. to keep 'outi-of the way, aud' nlthe K. to hold her course. Th,e;latter's swing to starboard Wall therefore a .faul.t, tributing to the collision; and, as the reappearance of the reA lights of the K. have sp-own ,to the G. S. that thete was danger of oollision' by the starbOlird'swing ,of theK.1 itwas t,he duty oftheG,. S.thereupon. under al'tiole18, to stop and back;;" and for liar failure 80 to do she also was'iri fault. The damages were therefore
divided., " ..' , ,
iSteaJn-Sbip G. S. abOut half a point off' her·own \>Ort bOw, alid thereupon' ported her
' The'steam-ship K ·· on. course of N. E. by N;,
N., Jnade the green light of the
. In Adrnlraltr. Snit for damages QooaslPp.ed Bteatn-sHip'sGulfStream and eJrdy; forJibelitlits. '.
" , ", , ..,,'
lBepol1e4 bl Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New York bar.