BROWN FOLDIKG MACH. CO. V. BTONEMETZ PRINTERS'MACH. CO.
-exposition of it given by the order of the minister of commerce is correct. It seems to me that Gramme Electrical Co. v. Arnoux & H. Electric Co., supra, has been overruled by Bate Refrigerating (lo. v. Hammond Co. and PoW v. Brewing Co., supra. The pleas of the defendants are overruled, with costs.
BROWN FOLDING MACH. CO. et at v. STONEMETZ PRINTERS' MACH. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. November 10, 1893.) No. '1:7.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRINTING l:'RESS AND FOLDING MACHINE-CARRYING MECIIANISM.
Letters patent No. 343,677, granted June 15, 1886, to John A. Stonemetz for improvements in a mechanism for carrying sheets of paper from a printing press to a folding machine, said improved mechanism being so constructed that it may be folded when not in use upon the folding machine by means olt holes in the carrying mechanism which engage with pins on the folding machine, are infringed, as to all the claims, by a device manu· factured under letters patent No. 331,762, issued December 8, 1885, to R. T. Brown, for folding such a connecting mechanism upon the folding machine by means of hinges. 57 Fed. Rep. 601, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the West· ern District of Pennsylvania. In Equity. Bill by the Stonemetz Printers' Machinery Company against the Brown Folding Machine Company and others for in· fringement of letters patent, and for relief on the ground of inter· ference. A demurrer to the bill was overruled. 46 Fed. Rep. 72. A cross bill was filed, and thereafter stricken from. the record. Id. 851. There was a final decree for complainant as to infringement, but for: defendants as to the interference. See 57' Fed. Rep. 601. Defendants appeal from so much of the decree as is against them. Affirmed. James.K. Hallock, for appellants. J. C. Sturgeon, for appellee. Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and GREEN, Dis· trict Judges. of BUTLER, District Judge. The bill charges Stonemetz's patent No. 343,677, of June 15, 1886; and also an interference between this patent and two others issued to R. T. Brown (owned by the defendants) on July 14, 1885, and December 8,1885, respectively, numbered 331,762, and 332,444. The circuit court having sustained the former charge and dismissed the latter, the defendants appealed, and assign as error so much of the decree as is against them. The only question involved is one of fact: Was Stonemetz first to invent the device covered by his patent? While there is soone contention that he was anticipated by others than Brown, the main reliance is on Brown. A careful examination of the evidenCe
has satisfied us that the conclusion reached by the circuit court is right. The anticipatory devices set up, other than Brown's, present no difficulty whatever. They show nothing suggestive of Stonemetz's device. As between Stonemetz and Brown the proofs do not leave the mind in doubt that the former was the original inventor. Brown's disclaimer, in taking his patent, No. 331,762, is of itself, a sufficient answer to the claim now made in his favor. The statement of facts and analysis of testimony made by the circuit court are entirely satisfactory; and to avoid unnecessary enlargement we adopt them. The decree is affirmed.
EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et aI. v. MT. MORRIS ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et aI. SAME v. UNITED EI.ECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. November 8, 1893.) 1. PATENTS·FOR INVENTIONS-INJUNCTION-LACHES. Persons who establish a plant for the use of infringing electric lamps pending a suit to test the validity· of the patent, which is brought and pressed with reasonable diligence, have no equities to prevent an injunction because the patentee delayed suing them until the patent was sustained in the test suit. 57 Fed. Rep. 642, affirmed. 2. SAME-EQUITIES-INFRINGmG USERS-LICENSEES. An equity to be supplied with electric lamps by the manufacturing patent owner, lilt reasO'Ilable rates, may arise in favor of one who, pending a suit to test the patent, and while foreign decisions thereon were con· flicting, has purchased from an infringing manufacturer an expensive plant, requiring the lamp for its operation; but this equity does not apply as between an exclusive licensee for a given territory, who has expended large sums on the faith of the patent, and an infringer, who has invaded snch territory pending the test suit. 57 Fed. Rep. 642, affirmed; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Sawyer-Man Electric. Co., 3 C. C. A. 605, 53 Fed. Rep. 592, limited. . 8. SAlliE-PECUNIARY Loss. The fact that an infringing user of an electric lamp necessary to the operation of its plant has made great expenditures lo'oking 'to future extensions of its business is no ground for refusing to enjoin it from going into new territory and buildings, or from continuing to light buildings which it first lighted after the patent was sustained by the circuit court in a test case; and the great pecuniary loss which the infringer would suffer by an unqualified injunction only gives it an equity to be allowed to use the patented lamp, for a reasonable compensation, in the buildings it had lighted prior to the decision in the test suit. 57 Fed. Rep. 642, modified.
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In Equity. Bills by the Edison Electric Light Company and the Edison Electric llluminating Company of New York against the Mt. Morris Electric Light 'Company and others, and the United Electric Light & Power Company, for infringement of a patent. Preliminary injunctions were granted below, (57 Fed. Rep. 642,) and defendants appeal from the orders granting the same. Modi fled.