PAT,MER V. MILLS.
the plane of the wheel, the boxes of one series alternating with the boxes of the other series, the wheel shaft keyed to the outer end of the wheel hUb, passing through the spindle and lubricated by said boxes, that portion of the shaft on each side of the plane of the wheel being lubricated by its respective set of boxes, substantially as set forth." These claims, both by reason of the prior art, and on account of the minute and numerous details of description used, are necessarily extremely narrow, and show invention, if at all, only in the specific forms of constrnction and combination described; and, this being so, the evidence does not show infringement, unless it be of the first and second claims of patent No. 362,870. If those claims are valid, it is conceded that they have been infringed. Their validity, however, Is denied; and in view of patent No. 217,125, issued to C. Lohnes, and Nos. 233,178 and 244,968, issued to J. S. Adams, it is clear that they are void of invention. The only feature of novelty as· serted for the first claim is that the spindle on which the wheel is mounted "projects about an equal distance on each side of the plane of the wheel," and, for the second claim, the novelty is supposed to be in "the tubular spindle · '" '" having a bearing formed at its inner end of less diameter than the bore of the spindle." Neither of these things are new, and there was no invention in introducing them into the combinations described. It follows that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity.
C. P. Jacobs and V. H. Lockwood, for appellant. !R. S. Taylor, for appellees. Before GRESHAM, Circuit Judge, and BUNN and JENKINS, District Judges. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below.
PALMER et at v. MILLS et al. (Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. June 29, 1893.) No. 728.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS FABRICS. VALIDITY PREI,IMINARY INJUNCTION -
Letters patent No. 308,981 and No. 3,08,982, issued December 9, 1884, . to Frank L. Palmer, are for improvements for stitching comfortables by machinery. Owing to the commercial advantages given by these patents, complainants, who oWlwd them, were enabled to practically command the entire business of this country in this Jdnd of quilts. The validity ·)f the patents bad never been denied, except by one other party who, after suit brought for infringement, compromised the same, and has ever since paid a royalty. Held, that on an application for preliminary injunctiou, where infringement WllS plain, patents would be presumed to be valid, and the injunction unless defendants gave a sufficient bond to secure any damages decreed Against them.
In Equity. Bill by Frank L. Palmer and others against Crefeld Mills and others for infringement of patents. On motion for preliminary injunction. Order allowing injunction unless bond be given. E. H. Brown, for complainants. J. E. Maynadier, for defendants.
,ThiS motion for a prelimInary tlle infiingenient of claims 14 and 24 of tel'S patent No. 308,981, and· of claims 2, 3, 4, 12, and 15, of letters 308,982, granted to Frank L. Palmer, Deoomber 9, 1884, quilting fabrics. The folloWing facts appearedl1pon :t;he, The ,complainlilllts' provide tor a novel and useful mode of stitchingcomfortables by machinery. The commercial, advantages of these improvements, have enabled complainants. practically the entire business of this country ,in this . class of quilts. No one has heretofore disputed the validity ,of .said patents,emept the R. T. Palmer Company. Complainants" brought suit against said company" and said suit was settled grant of a shop right in ,consideration of the payment of a " Said agreement is still in force, and, said royalty has been annually paid. A comparison of the machines of defendants with those of complainants shows them to be substantially the same. If the sewing machine of complainants' model, while in operation upon its quilt, be grasped and held fast, and the pattern be allowed to move, the model becomes the wotking model of machine, performing the same functions in the same way, with the same result. The only vital question in the case is as to the validity of complainants' in view of the prior state of the art. But, in view of the considerations already it seems that, sl;lid patents should be assumed to be valid upon this hearing. As was said by Judge Lacombe in sessions v. Gould, 49 Fed. Rep. 856:
"The contention that, in view of the prior state ot the art, they do oot disclose any patentable invention, is not sufficiently clear and convincing to overthrow the case malle out by the' pntentsthemselves, and the public acqUiescence in validity. , The defense ot prior public use ... ... ... should not be disposed of on ex parte affidavits, butl'eServed tor final hearing."
,,. ,T01VNSEND, District JUdge.,
There is nothing in the case to show that complainants will not be tlufliciently> J.>rotected by a suitable bond. They. have already granted to theii' only other competitor a license' to make and use machines embOdying the improvements claimed in said patents. One of the defendants, whose financial responsibility is unquesto give such bond as may be required for all tioned, has damages,profits, and costs which may be decreed against either the individual defendants, or, the defendant corporation. There can be no irreparable damlige, in such a case, where the value of the royalty ean be ascertained, provided the responsibility of defendants is guarantied. Let an order be entered, granting a preliminary injunction, un,less the defendants shall, within 10 days, file a satisfactory bond for $10,OOO,oonditioned for th.e payment of any final money decree which may rendered in 'favor of complainants.
NATIONAL FOLDING BOX &: PAPER CO. V. PHOENIX PAPER CO.
NATIONAL· FOLDING· BOX & PAPER CO. v. PHOENIX PAPER 00.. Limlted, et al.
(Circuit Court, E. D. New York. May 18, 1893.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS.
In Equity. Suit by the. National Folding Box & Paper Company against the Phoenix Paper Co., Limited, and others, for infringement of a patent. Decree for complainant. Walter D. Edmonds,. for complainant. Billings & Cardozo, (R. B.McMaster, of counsel,) for defendants.
BENEDICT, District Judge. This is an action founded upon the second claim of letters patent No. 171,866, dated January 4, 1876, issued to !reuben Ritter, for an improvement in paper boxes. The patent has expired. The main defense in the case is a defect in title, although the defenses of lack of novelty in invention and noninfringement are set up in the answer. The patent has been several times examined by the courts of the United States, and the question of the validity of the patent has been passed upon by this court. See·Box Co. v. Nugent, 41 Fed. Rep. 139; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 913, 51 Fed. Rep. 229. Moreover, the infringement here complained of has been. before the circuit court of New Jersey, and also before the circuit court of the southern district of New York. The question. of title raised in this case has also been passed upon by the circuit court for the southern district of New York. Na· tional Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 488. Under these circumstances, the only question open for consideration on this occasion is whether certain patents set up in this case, which were not set up in the former cases, can affect the decision. At the argument these patents were not seriously relied upon, as it seemed to me, and upon examination I find nothing in them which impugns the validity of the patent. In regard to the title of the complainant in the patent in question, my opinion coincides with that of Judge Coxe, who examined the question. There must be a decree for the complainant for an accounting.