eo. It. DAVID
conditioned ,that the same shall be satisfied by" the payment of 25 per cent. of the amount due on said notes, after deducting the proceeds of the collateralsj treating the deduction as made at the time the composition was confirmed.
EAGLE MANUF'G Co. v. DAVID BRADLEY MANUF'G Co.
(Circuit Court, N. D. llUnwis. July 18,1891.)
PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-RIIS ADJUDIOATA.
Where a suit for alleged infringement of a patent is brought against a firm that is a branch of the firm that manufactures the alleged infringing device, and the latter firm conducts the defense, a decree for the complainant is binding upon 'tbe firm that conducted the defense, not only upon all the questions that were raised and determined in the suit, but upon all that might have been raised and determined therein.
In Equity. Bill by the Eagle Manufacturing Company against the David Bradley Manufacturing Company to enjoin the infringement ofa patent. Nathaniel French and W. T. Underwood, for complainant. Bond, Adams «Jones, for defendant. BLODGETT, District Judge. This is a bill for injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement by defendant of letters patent No. 242,497, granted June 7, 1881, to E. A. Wright, for a cultivator. The invention covered by this patent consists of a peculiar spring, so arranged and adjusted with the operative parts of the machine that it will aid in lifting the cultivator beams or plow beams out of the ground with an increasing force as the cultivator rises, rather than with a decreasing [orce,as is usual with such springs; this peculiar effect being produced by increasing the leverage of the spring upon the beam, to be lifted as the beam rises, although the spring is at the same time losing some part of its tension and lifting force. Infringement is charged of the first, second, and third claims of the patent, which are: "(1) In a cultivator, the combination of a vertically SWinging drag bar or beam and a lifting spring, which acts with increasing force or effect on the beam as the latter rises, and vice versa. "(2) In a wheeled cultivator, the combination of a vertically moving beam and lifting 'spting, substantially as described, whereby an increasing upward strain is communicated to the beam as the latter rises. "(3) The combination ,of a wheeled frame, a vertically moving beam or drag bar attaChed thereto, and a lifting spring, substantiaIJy as described, whicb exerts a greater strain or effect upon the beam when the latter is elevated than when it is depressed." 'The defenses int.erposedare want of patentable novelty and noninfringement. The bill avers, and the proof fully shows, that in the month of Decem. ber, 1887, complainant brought suit in the United States circuit coo11 v.50F.no.2-13
lot; fheeoutherndlBtrictl o'f: lows, against David Bradle,;
was ,a,brallchh<mse of the :idefendant in this case; engaged in selling the identical class of cultivators which are charged to infringe the complainant's patent in this case; "that the defendant herein undertook and managed the defenSe of said suit, employing counsel for that purpose, and conducting the defense in the name of David Bradley & Co., the,,$,3id'bw.nch hOUSlBj,Und" that such proceedings ,were had in said case that the same was brought to hearing upon the merits at the May term of saidcQu,M; f01'11888,and the said oourt did then and there ,by the sale adjudge and decree thut the said ,DaVid" Bradley,&;; of saidawtivators, ,had complainant's patent, ,and enjoined ,'Qf said' pate9'tj3d'devJ(je,by tbedefendants in said cause. 'It.isfurtherallegedinisa!ElchUl, and shown by. the proofs, that the eultf\'ittdrsWhich the defendahfS'in'the said Iowacase with selling, and thereby violating the complainant's patent, were manufactUli'ed by,the.defendantiJhthis,case;: It is oontended'thiliLupon the facts alleged in the bill and shown in the proof, in regard to the prior case, defendant herein is esto.pped hl,';regard to the validity ,of complainant's from any further patent or the fact of infringement. 'An examination ofthe record in the Iowa case, which is in evidence in this case, and of the opinion of the court in' that case, (35 295;) shows that all the questions now made in this 'case were made ,in the:lowa case, and fully considered and passed upon by. that court, and held against thedeflmdant; that the proof: !Upon the issues made in this case, upon the questions of novelty and noninfringeinent,is essentially the same as was placed before the Iowacourl',excepting that'the defendant in this case has introduced proof tending to,carry: theiMention in :thepatent to C. A. Hague, under which defendant is working, granted June 21, 1881, back to an earlier date than' that of the inventioncovered,by complainant's patent. But a fur examination of this new proof" introduced by the defendant, fails to satisfy me that the Hague invention antedates the invention covered by the com patent; .it being, a rule of evidence that the fact of priority of invention, in order to defeat a patent, must be so clear and oopvincing as to leave no reasonable doubt. Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120;, Shirley v;·8andetlion, 8 Fed. Rep. 90S. , " court endeavored observe,. IJ) patent c,ases,lt seems qUlteclear to me that the defenaant in this' to thelitigat,ion in the Iowa binding upon ,the defen,dant here. Therule-laid down in Robbins v.Okicago Oity, 4 Wall. 657, seems to me fully applicable to this There the court said:
1m infringement ofthesame patent; that -the said DavidBradley,,&'Go.
twine to a. tInal determination."
and between the Baille parties. rests upon the Just and -expedll:lDt aXIom that It is for the intert'st of the community that a limi t should be opposed to the continuance of lltlgati6ti, and tHilt the' sameeause 'of action sho uld not by brought
EAGLEH'\'Nm"G !'OO. t1. MOLINE' P,LOW 00.
Partiesin'tliat;connectibidnch1de allwbo are dhectly interested in the subject-maHer; Rnd who had a right to make defense, proceedings,' examine' 'Yitpesses, and JrWn judgment. ,Andthis same is and followed in,numerous caSes, "mongwhich are Beloitv. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619; Millerv. Liggett, etc., Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 91; Claflin v. Fletcher, ld. 851; American BeU Tel. Co. v,' National 27 Fed. Rep. 666; 37 Fed. Bep.352; Len v. Deakin, 11 23, 13 Fed. Rep. 514; Wit.:, 8on'8 Ex'rv. Deen, 121 U. S. 525, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1004. '" The proor'i'n this case shows beyond doubt that the defendantin ,this case, with the consent of the defendants in the Iowa case, made itself the dominus litU8 in that case; it controlled the defense; appeared by its own attorneys; it was the manufacturer of the plows in which the alleged infringement was found; and may, I think, with entire propriety, be held to 'be botlnd,not only upon all the questions which were raised and terminedin the former case, but upon all which might have been ,raised and determined in that case. The Hague patent itself was considered by the Iowa court, and not held to be an antiqipation or protection as against the complainant's patent. The defendant, may. I think, be con· sidered as bound, not only by all the evidence which was considered in the Iowa but all which it could have appropriately put into the recor<i in that case, including the testimony, which it is claimed would carry the Hague invention back of the Wright invention. I am therefore of opinion that all the defenses which are urged here and are cut off by the decree in the Iowa case. A have decree wiIl therefore be entered, finding that the defendant infringed as charged, and for an injunction and accounting.
t1. MOLINE PLOW
(Oircuit Court. N. D. llZino1.8; July 13, 1891.)
In Eqnity. Bill by the Eagle ManufacturingCompany against the MoUne Plow Company to restrain the infringement of a patent. Nathaniel French and W. T. Underwood, for complainant. Bond, 4dams &- Jones. for defendant. District Judge. The bill in this case charges the defendant with the infringement of the same. patent involved in the preceding case, against the David Bradley Manufacturing Company, (50 Fed. Rep. 193,) and the defeuse interposed is the same as in that case. The bill in this case also charges that in December. 1887, complainant brought suit in the southern district of Iowa, by bill in chancery, against the Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Company. f0l' an alleged infringement of the same lettera patent; that the defendant in tMt cas,e was a branch houaeof ,the Moline Plow Company, the defendant in this case, and was engaged in selling the identical cultivators manufactured by the defendant herein, and which in this case complainant charges ill-