CARTER & CO. V. HOUGHTON.
not seriously imperil the complainant's business. A sufficient answer is that it will not seriously imperil the defendant's business to st.op infringing, and as the complainant is ill the right and the defendant is in the wrong the latter should l:,rive way. The effect of the injunction upon others, not parties to the suit, cannot be considered now. The court fully appreciates all that has been urged as to the harsh and arbitrary character of the remedy prayed for, and yet, reo membering the innumerable obstacles which beset a recovery of damages and pro:fits, it must be conceded that an injunction is the only adequate remedy left open to the inventor. It has, however, never been issued in this court except in cases where the right was clearly established. That this is such a case there can be little doubt. The circuit court of Massachusetts did not hesitate to issue an Injunction in January, 1891, and the complainant's case is far stronger now. The motion is granted.
CARTER & CO., Limited, v. HOUGHTON et aL (C1rcuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 20, 189L) No. 2,762.
PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-VALIDITy-ANTICIPATION-PRELIMINABY INJUNCTION -DUPLICATE MEMORANDUM By,lPs.
On motion for preliminary injunction, it is held that the first claim of letters patent No. 288,048, issued November 6, 1883, to John H. Frink for an improvement in duplicate memorandum slips, is valid, and was not an· ticipated by devices made either under patent No. 266,189, issued October 17, 1882, to James L. O'Connor, or reissued patent No. 10,359, granted July 24, 1883, to John R. Carter.
In Equity. Bill by Carter & Co., Limited, against S. S. Houghton and others for infringement of letters patent No. 288,048, issued November 6, 1883, to John H. Frink, for an improvement in duplicate memorandum slips. One of the defenses was that the patent was anticipated by devices made under letters patent No. 266,189} granted October 17, 1882, to James L. O'Connor, and reissued letters patent No. 10,359, dated July 24, 1883, to John R. Carter upon Qriginal patent No. 252,646, issued January 24, 1882. On motion for preliminary injunction. Granted. Charles H. Duell and N. Caryl Ely, for complainant. Cowen, Dickerson, Nicoll & Brown, for defendants. COLT, Circuit Judge. In the above-entitled case the motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. The court :finds the :first claim of the Frink patent valid, and that it was not anticipated by the O'Connor and Carter devices. v.53F.no.6-37
FEDERAL REPORTER. vol.
M.A.NUF'G 00. v. MASTet aL
Ohio/W. D. December 3,1892.) No. 4,230.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COMITY BETWEEN CmCUITS.
'£hu rule of comitY,}Vl)itlh requires a QircUit court to follow the concluthe validity of a patent, except sions in cases of Of fact or law, or of new eVidence, is not rendered lrulpplicable 'by!iliefa'<lt 'that two deeJ.sions were rendered in such other c1reUit,-one overruling the other on, r!till.earing; a,nd the last decision will be followed, as the tlna1 conclusion of that court,
. The letters patent No. 190,816, issued May 15, 1877, t9 William 'P. Brown; 'tor an improvement in couplings for cultivators, sistingof a pipe box provided with a projection adapted to co-operate with a sPrQlg, weight,.or to.fQck the. pipe boX; against or with .the re:ir, cultivators or plows, is not fol' a combination, but fora single part, and, as such, was anticipated by the patent of'Jime 11, 1872; to William Ha:s"' lup. Manufacturing Co. v. Deere, 51 Fed. Rep. 229, followed.
'rhe seconq. claim of the patent, which is fora com!1ination of the tubular bearing in contlectlonWith tbe·projoot1on or rigid arm attached by a spring toth£: main fraIlle of the cultivator, and. an upright bearing, so that the force' of the'spring and the lateral' sWing of the beam would co-operate without conflicting, discloses patentable invention, and was not anticipated either by the Chapman patent of 1868, for a horse rake, the Plagge patent, for an improved. rail guide.':(Qr wagons, or the Wheeler. patent, fQr a rake for a grain harvester. Brown Manufacturing Co. v.Buford, 21 Fed. Rep; 714, followed.
This claim is infringed by a cultivator made under patent No. 260,447, issued July 4, 1882, to Berlew and Kissei, which shows a.pipe box connected to the plow beam by uprightbearlng, and having a rigid, upwardly projecting arm, terminating in a jaw with three hole!! in it, to which is fastened by a pin a stiff rod, passing through a guide piece at its top, and surrounded by a spiral spr1Dg, which, by the interposition of a washer and pin,pl'essesthe rod. downward, .thUSRCting as a counterbalance to the weight of the plow and drag beam; for the fiat spring of the patent and the rod and spiral sprfug are well-known equivalents. Infringement is not prevented by the fact that in defendants' cultivator the arlIt and rod are so arranged that, when thrown rearwardly beyond. the perpendicular, the spring aids the operator to depress the plows; for, while this maY,be an improYcment on the combination of the patent, that combination is still present.
Infringement is nqt by the faot that the vertical bearing conn('ctillg the pipe bO:ll;l\nd the plow beam are arranged in defendants' cultivator so that 'the brackets or arms and the bolt are fixed to the pipe box, while in the patent the parts are reversed; the brackets and bolt being :lttachoo to The J,:low OHlin.
"!oris infrlr.gement III evented by the fact tlrat in the pa :ent the stirrup which carries the vertical bearilig connecting the pipe box with the plow beam is fastened to the pipe box by a loop, and is made to rlgidls' con· lwd lherewith by longitudinal ribs, which engage with corresponding grooves ou the pipe !.lox, thus permitting a circumferential adjm;tlllcnt l:!O as to regulate the te1l.';;ion of the spring, while in defendant:,' machine the pipe box has but two ribs, one above and one below, which p.ngage with corresponding depressions in the surrounding stirrup,-the tru·