from·witiholdihgthe injunction: Here there is no sort of dispute that the for any damages which the .complainants may 'sustain:i!f"'Uterellhould:be a·final adjudication in their favor upon the construction:oontended for' theircll1im. As the question· is not free from doubt, and is one respecting which the experts are not in accord, it would seenltQ be improper for .the, court, as a preliminary step in the litigatiQn, :td d'O that whicbmight work great inju'ry to the defendants, when.iftlieoomplafnaht&shall finally be adjudged entitled to relief, the defendltlt!;ll1re amply able to compensate them for the inju.ry. The motion for an injunction will therefore be overruled.
;PAeTEUR' CH:AM:mr.AND FrLTEB Co. et ale
tC(rcUii 'CoU11, N.
'1. PATlnrrs' ]1'011
FuNlt et ale
1ft. D. May 16, 1892.)
, . . Lettenftlltent No; !Febru&l'1 16. 1886; to, Charles Edwsrd Chamtor· a ot pipe suitable clay, .)V.,ater, with por.oelai.n ea.rth or it,ll uivalent, the latter be111S B.rst and then reduced to a fine powder; tlie'prot>ortions about 26'to40per ceDt of the clay to OO'.to 80 of the &l!orth. HeM, on motion fora prelimtnaty inJuno'lo1l,tliat it was. an infringement touae acoI!!pound of' kaoUn e11\.l'. finely ground. silex··n about the proportions of 80 to 45 flle kMliJl '8u9 the relit aUex. . ',' ... , . On tb'e gran.tIng ota'prelbhinary injunction again8tinfringeI!!ent, complainan\ will not be requiredt(fgive abon:d tor theproteotion of defendants, when the latter have been guilty.ot blld faith towards hiI!!. I ... . ,
, t . · : :;
FA1TB Oll' DEll'BNDANT..,
In Equity. Bill for infringement of a patent. On motion for preliminaryit1junction. .Granted. Kerr &Curiis';L. Hill. and Staley&,Shepharrl, 'forcomplail'lants. H. 1;-: Bond, and fable & Brawn, for defendants.
BLODGETT, District Judge. '.this', case is now before the court on a motion for a 'prelimina,ry irijul1ction'td restrain the alleged infringement of patent, No. 336,385, granted February 16, 1886, to Charles Edward ,Chamberland, for a tiHering comI>0und. The scope and characteristics of the patent are perhaps best disclosed by the patentee himself, in his specification, w here ...' ,
"The means for'filtering water ordinarily consist in the use of burned brick, powdered substances, and various other materials, but which, either fromthll churllcte1"ofthe materials themselves, or from the I manner thElyare used or compounded. are not fUlly satisfactory. w here great thorough:J1eslI ill filtering is requisite., However efficient the named substances be, for tiltering, purposes, yet they do not, howeye",. retailil genns ,or microbes. or extretneJ.,y, which are in sus, pensi9U. in the Wl:\ter pr other ·· " .'" .... My invention is designed more coml>letely tc)hold back such $erms.' compound is formed 8ubstantiaUYof pipe clay, or any' other SUitable, clay.: and porcelain
OtJTCHEON 'V. HERRICK.
earth, orUll equivalents, hereInafter named. The clay is diluted in water. and then mixed with the porcelain earth or Its equivalents. The porcelain earth is ground or l"educed to fine powder in any suitable mill, after having been previously baked in any suitable kiln. The proportions are from twenty to forty per cent. of clay to sixty to eighty per cent. of porcelain earth or its equivalents. They may, however, vary, more or less. I wish it, however, to be understood that I do not limit myself to the above-named substances, for the same. or very much the same, result may be attained by using, for instance, silex, magnesia, or its equivalent, instead of porcelain earth. .. IIC '" A filtering body produced from the above compound is homogeneous, and fulfils the required conditions for filtering. I du not wish to be understood as laying claim. broadly, to the materials hereinabove mentioned as a filtering compound. but only when they are treated as above specified." The proof Is, I think, quite convincing that defendants use a filtering compound made by combining kaolin clay or porcelain earth and finelyground silex in about the proportions of 30 to 45 per cent. of kaolin and the balance ground silex. This, I think, is an infringement of the patent, as the patentee expressly says: "I do not limit myself to the above-named substances, [pipe-clay and porcelain earth,] for tbesame, or very much the same, result may be attained by using, for instance, silex, magnesia, or its equivalent, instead of porcelain earth." The utility of this compound for filtering purposes is, I think, abundantly established by the proof, as it now stands, for the purposes of this motion. The infringement being established, as I think it is by the proof, an injunction will be ordered, as prayed. A bond would be required as a condition of granting this injunction" but for the proof in the record showing that the defendants in this suit have been guilty of bad faith towards the complainants, to such an extent that they are not equitably t as I think, entitled to the protection of the bond from complainants.
(Circuit Court, D. Mas8achusetts. September 9, 1892.)
1. PATENTS 1'6R INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-PRIOR ART-BEATING-OUT MACHINES. Letters patent No. 384,893. issued June 19, 1899, to the assignees of James C.
Cutcheon, covers, in claim 1, "a machine for beating out the soles of boots and shoes, provided with two jacks, two molds, and means sUbstantially as described, havin« provision for automatically moving one jack in one direction, while the other is being moved in the opposite direction, whereby the sole of the shoe upon one jack will be under llressure, while the oth,er jack will be in a convenient position for: the removal of the shoe therefrom." Held, on areview of the prior state of the art, that the ,essence of the invention is that it was the first machine in which both the'motions of compressing the last and'of clearing the last from the die were performed automatically, Qnd the claim is valid. The 'fact that defendants in' their machine use lasts instead of jacks does not prevent infringement, since:the two are well-known equivalents. ,