The bill 'toat th& defendant:!s .sali! J.pa.tent, and asks for an injunction and <laJl1il.itll. The defendant demurred to bill. ,,' .. ,J;y800der Hill, for .'", ".'" .Jo/llf&.M.TIw.Jch,ttr 4J.nd.Daw, Kdlogg ere Sevb'a.nct, for c1e fendant.
BLODGETT, Dis!rtct 'Judge,(C1I'aUy.) I cannot any ground on .hich to sustain this patent. It is void for want of invention. The guarantyinj:tof men's' fi+inncial ability to pay is not an invention of the complainant. Nearly all forms of guarantying or insuring have been in existence for many years, notably fidelity, casualty, fire, lightning, and other forms of insurance, all of which are baseu upon averages obtainedfrom practical It required no inventive .genius to form and plan the insuraoce on this basis. One is not entitled to a patent for a plan or method of business which only req'!!!.ElSgood judgment and foresight. In this case ordinary business judgment would suggest this system of guarantying. Again, the'means fors8curing merchants and others against exet.ssive losses is stated to consist of a sheet of paper containing ruled lines and certain tabulated information or statistics. It is evident' that the 'means for securing the merchant is by virtue of a contract. or whereby the assured guaranties the ml'rchant a sheet of paper with ruled lines for agll.inst loss. The np.w.That statistics and various kinds of informatiqn havea1}vays been tabulilf.ed in a similar mallner is a matter of general knowledge. I do' not intend to decide that a man may not have a patent for a mode of or for a form of tabulating amounts or statistics; but am clearly (>f opinion that this patent cannot be construed 'to cover a business principle such as a law of.averages, which seems to have been the purpose of the specifications in this patent.
After tDe foregoing opinion was delivered. and before any formal ord91 was entered, the complainant dismissed its bill ot complaint.
(OircuU Coun of .AppeaZ,. Ninth. Cwcuit. July lS. 1892.)
hnBKTIOKI-COKITBtTOTIOK OJ' CL.uK-ELBOTBIo.LIGJlTIKG:GAI-BU1lll
signee of Jacob P. Tirrell, tbe claim 11 for. "In an electric-lighting gas-burner. a magnet for turning the gas cock by one electrio impulse, combined with a fixed electrode, (J', and a movable electrode, tI, normally in contact, and mechanism con· necting tbe armature witb tbe movable electrode, to brsak the contaot between a' and tI tbe inltant after tbe gas is turned on, and create a spark for i&'nition, substantially as deaoribed.· In tbe drawiuga, G' designated a platinum. . on tbe lIxedarm, and f! a small' bent arm normally in cont&ot With the fixed electrodi. Beld, tbat the word "electrode" i'eneraUy, and especially as used .in tbe patent, means the platinum or oth4ll' metal points oonatitutlni the pow of the J'eeL Rep. 876, amrmed. .
In letters patent No.ll8O,IS00. iSlued July t7 1886, to GeorgeF. Pinkbam. al
apparatus has a horizontal armature, which moves in a vertical direction, while the patented apparatus has a vertical armature, which moves in a horizontal direction, does not prevent infringement. 48 Fed. Rep. 8i5, atBrmed.
BAME-PAljT INFRINGEMENTS-EQUITY JURISDICTION.
The medhanism being otherwise 'llubstanttaUy the lla.me, the fact that defendant's
When a patent has been assigned, together with all claims for past infringe. ments, the fact that a person s'ued by the assignee has not sold any of the infringh;.g articles since the assignment, and testifies tb.at he intenlls to sell no more, is pot sufficient to exclude equitable jurisdiction, when it apPbars that he still has them in stock. I1nd has published a catalogue offering them for sale, and that in his answer he asserts a right to sell them. 48 Fed.' Rep. 375,' affirmed.
Appeal, from the Circuit COl1rt of the United States for the Northern District of California. In Equity. Suit by the California Electrical Works against George L. Henzel for infringement of letters patent No. 230,590, issued July 27 , 1886, to George F. Pinkham, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, for an electric gas-lightiIlg apparatus. Decree for injunction and accounting. See 48 Fed. Rep. 375, where a full statement of the facts will be found in the opinion delivered by HAWLEY, J. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. ],.f. A. Wheaton, 1. M. KaUoch, and F. J. Kierce, for appellant. John H. M1ller and J. P. Langhorne, for appellee. ' Before McKENNA and GILBERT, Circuit Judges.
McKENNA. Circuit JudF;e. The facts in this case justified an injun(}o tion and tbeequitable jurisdiction of the court. The contending devices are for lighting and extinguishing gas by "one impulse," through the agency of electricity. We think the defenflant's device is au infringing imitation of claimant's device, The substant.ial resemblances in structure and Jriction were clearly delineated by the learned judge who tried the case in the circuit cOlJrt. and we concur in bis reasoning llnd conclusions. J udgffient is affirr..1ed.
MARSHALL 'II. PACKARD
(Circuit Court, D. MU88a<'husetts. August 29, 1892.)
PATE:S-TS "OR INVENTIO:s-s-TRIVTAL IMPROVEMENTS-BoOTS AND SIIOES.
Letters patent No. 840,185, Issued April 20. 1886, to tloward T. Marshall for improvements In boots and shoes desig-ned more particularly for pla.vlng lawn tennis, claim substantially (1) a continuous rubber sole witb. projections at lobe heel and tread, all moldea from a single hlank; and (2) the same features, wItb the addition that lobe projections shall be conoidal and arranged in regular order. Held, that the improvement \s of a trivial and unpatentable character.
In Equity. Bill by Howard T. Marshall against Fred Packard and others for infringnment of letters patent No. 340,135, issued April 20, 1886, to complainant. The invention relates to boots and shoes" more