SMITH & DAVIS MANUF'G CO. V. MELLON ·
..A machine for beating out the soles of boots and shoes, provided with two jacks, two molds, and means, substantially as describf'd, having provision for automatically moving one jack in one direction while the other is being moved in the opposite direction, whereby the sale of the shoe upon one jack will be under pressure, while the other jack will be in aeonvenient position for the removal of the shoe therefrom." There is no doubt that the defendants' machine contains all the mechanical elements embraced in the above claim. The fact that the defendants use lasts instend of jacks in their machines is unimportant, because they are well-known equivalents. Upon the question of alleged prior use of the Cutcheon invention several years before the date of the patent, in a single machine constructed mainly in accordance with the Bresnahan patent of June 10, 1884, I am satisfied that this defense has not been made out upon the present record. The defendants are also charged with infringing the third claim of the patent in suit, which relates to certain details of construction. This claim seems to have been anticipated by the old Knox molder, but the defendants have not proved the use of the old Knox machine prior to the date of the Cutcheon patent. Upon the evidence, therefore, I must hold that this claim is also iI1fringed. Decree for complainants.
(Dwcuft Dourt, E. D. Missouri, E. D.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PUBLIC USE-BED BOTTOMS.
June 1, 1892.)
Letters patent No. 269,242, issued December 19,1882, to J. G. Smith for an im· provement in bed bottoms, are void because bed bottoms having all the material elements of the invention were in public use and on sale for more than two years prior to the application.
In Equity. Bill by the Smith & Davis Manufacturing Company against Mellon for infringement of letters patent No. 269,242, issued December 19, 1882, to John G. Smith for an improvement in bed bottoms. Bill dismissed. William M. Eccles, for complainant. George H. Knight, for defendant.
THAYER, District Judge, (orally.) In view of the testimony the court is of the opinion that the invention covered by letters patent No. 269,242 was in public use and on sale for more than two years prior to the date of the application for the patent, and that the patent is for that rea,son void. Smith Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; ftgbert v. Lippmann, 104 U. S. 333; Manningv. Glue Co., 108 U. S. 462. 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 860; Andrew8 v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101. It hardly admits of a doubt that complainant made, and sold wire ,bedbottoms which embodied all of the material featQres or elements oOhe
a profit:' .... . Thecl()l:\ipg of , th,E! hE!ad of the spiral springs1?Y passing the top wire around the second before extending it to form a hook cannot be regarded" undel, the specifications, asa material feature of the invention. That is a mode of construction. .The patentee would be entitleQ; IW, (and no doubt would claim ifthere was occasion to do so) use. or a spring with an open head was an infringement of his patent. well the use of a spring with a closed head. Bed bottoms all of material elements of the invention having been in public¥Be and 0;0 sale for more than two,years prior to the application, the patent is void, and the bill must be dismissed.
than two years prior to 0ctober 14, 1882, an experiment, but for the purpQse of realizing
LoRING V. BOOTH
CC1.rcndt Ccru.rt, N. D. New York. October 11, 18112.}
1. PATENTS J'OB INVENTIONS-ASSIGNMENT-INJI'RINGEMENT BY PATJlNTB'I.
A patentee assigned all his interest in a patent, agreeing not to manufacture or sell the patented or make any improvement thj!reon wbich would adapt it to any other ldnd of work. Subsequently the assignee sued him for infringement in making an improvement on the machine. Held, on motion for preliminary injunction, that in the light of the above contract, althoughtbe suit was not based thereon, the patentee was not in so favorable a position before a court of equity as one who infringes ignorantly or inadvertently, and that the patent should be conas aga1nllt him.
2. SA.ME-1:NFBIN611KENT-NOTIOE TO DESIST-LAOHES.
The defendants were Jl,oWled to desist from infringement about eight months after knowledge thereof came to the plaintiff, and lIuit was begun within four months thereafter. Beld, that under the circumstances tbe delay did not constitute laches. .
In Equity. Bill by Charles M. Loring against Quentin W. Booth and E. Booth for infringement of patent. On motion for preliminary injunction. Order for injunction unless defendants give bond. George B. Seldtm, for complainant. Boward L. Osgood, for defendants.
COXE, DistriCt Judge. The bilt isin the usual form, alleging infringement of two letters patent, numbered respectively 318,731 and 344,435, for improvements in sho&-upper machines. The validity of both patents is undispUted. 'l'he aefElDdants oppose the motion upon two principal groundsl-noninfdngement and laches. The question of infringement -of ·thethir.Jc1aim of the patent granted to Chades B. Hatfield, No.318,781, was decided at the argument. The device which the complainant prOduces Rsa sampleot the defendants' mallufacture certainly infringes when the irons are stationary, but it is thought this condi-