for the district of Connecticut, and in this court, where the same questions are pending in a way better calculated to elicit the exact truth, will. set the matter right; but, taking the evidence as I find it, including such inspection as one who is not an expert can give to the articles themselves, I do not feel at liberty to say that there has beElll a breach of the injunction. Motion
& F. CORBIN.
(Circuit Court, D. Oonnecticut. March 2, 1880.)
v. BURDITT and others, ante, 808, followed in this case.
In Equity. ,Motion for an Attachment. SHIPMAN;D. J.This is a motion for an attachment against the defendants for an alleged violation of the injunction order heretofore issued by this court in the above-entitled cause. The same questions which ltre presElnted in the affidavits were tried by Judge Lowell upon a motion for by the present plaintiff against Burditt and others. The motion was denied, and, after examining 'the various exhibits in the case, I can do no more than refer to the clearly expressed Lowell as an embodiment of my views. I opinion of J do not think that any. benefit would be conferred upon the parties by now attempting to modify or vary the language which he has used. . In both the Connecticut and Massachusetts ca,ses there were draw were, after being from iron Bcale, tumbled in a barrel. containing bits of brass, or brass By this process the surface of the articles was "brassed," or wasmor:e or less covered with a deposit of the softer metal. Theywere then dipped incqpal varnish, known as: a bronzing varnish, which was h;rdened in an oven heated to a moderate heat, but. not to so great a !leat as tooxydize
the varnish. Theconclusions of Judge Lowell, as to the articles which he apply' WlthCequal force to the "brassed" articlet;l" which he does not I),articularly specify. upon the affidavits no Indeed, the plaintiff admitted other course could be taken than to deny the motion, but he insisted earnestly, that there must be a mistake in the statements contained in the affidavits, which mistake could be detected by an expert, who should bedire,iltad to make personal inspection at the defendant!)' factory. I do not now think that there is such a ,mistake, and,not suspecting one, it would be a very unllsual course to refer the question for further investigation. Itmay be that times there heat in the oven than at other times, and that inadv,ertently anoxydill;ing ;result has been reached; but exhibit of varnished and unoxydized hutts, which were put into an oven with each batch of varnished oxydized butts, se,emsto me to be as nearly" conclushre on the question of to which .the were'su,bjected, .as any test well can ,The butts which .were dried upon the radiator in my , chambers have the same generalappearaMe which the oven" dried butts present. is manifest that the diatance b,etween non-infringement fl,nd infringement ia<a narrow. and one which unscrnpul()Ulil people can easily cross; but this exposedness of the patentee to fraud results from thefa.ct that the patent, while it is of importance and of the public, is not of broad. scope. To Mr. Justice Clifford'sqonst,l'uction of the patent party made objection :trial of thia motion. The motion is denied.
WOVEN WmE MATTRESS CO. V. PALMER.
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. May 27, 1880.)
1. WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS
BED Co., 1 FED. REP.
222, followed in this case.
In Equity. C. E. Perkins, for plaintiff. C. Goeller, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. Within the rulings made by Judge Blodgett and Judge Shipman, on the plaintiff's patent, I am of opinion that the frame purchased by Roberts from the defendant infringes clai1'l1s 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's patent. It has, substantially, the inclined end rail of the patent, made in two parts, for the purpose of clamping the fabric and holding it suspended by means of the inclination between the points of attachment. In it the end rails are raised above the side rails arid held in place by'corner irons, or· atandards, which perform the same function as the plaintifrs'standard. There are no: inclined recesses in its standards, to hold the ends of the end rails in aninclined position, but the end rails are evid:entlypurposely inclined, and held so by a screw bolt passing through apart of the standard and into the lower end rail. . So, too, the end rail is double. The ends of the fabric are bent over the upper edge of the 10wer end rail, and the bolts, or nails, or screws, which go through the upper end rail and through the fabric and into the lower end rail, aid -inholding the fabric to the frame: The side rails, standards, and end rails on such frame' are the manifest equivalent of those in the plaintiff's patent. I do not consider claims 2 and 4, and do not decide anything as to their construction, or as to the infringement, but grant the injunction asked for on claims 1 and 3.