392
FEDERAL REPORTER.
is opposite to a full orunpierced portion of a card ; it performs the said [withdrawing book from the grate] is nearesttbeeide of the machine, i,nstead of when it isflntbest therefrom." '1'0 sppport the defense oiprior publication, der Jacquard Maschin," 8< work printed in, 1873, was cited bytespondellt. Goo. B. Oarr, for complainant; Goorge J. Harding, and George Harding, for respondent. BUTLER and McKENNAN, JJ., in an oral opinion, held complainant's pl1tennQ have been antici.pated, and dismissed his bill, with costs to respOiIdElnt.' .
CAREY
et
at ".MILLER et at} FOR lNFRINGEMENT7-tNJUNCTION-PRE,' ' .
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. March 6, 1888.' 1. PATENTS FOR VIOUS ADJUDICA'IIONS;
Where a patent, involving the sUbjection of steel to heat, had been before the ,courts, and had been sustained to ,the extent of coveririg such pro·, cess "whim the springs are kept'below red heat," held, III this suit, on appli: for preliminary injunction, that the patent would be presumed valid only to the extent expressly covered by the decisions referred to. , ' '
2.
SAME.
As upon the preliminary affidavits it appeared that defendants, in the process used by them, heatp.d the springs above this limit. held, .that the appHcatiotifotpreUminaryiIijunction, should be denied" with leave, to renew should complainants be able to s1,lch further evidence of defendants' process of manufacture as to indicate that patent was infrin/;ted.
In Equity.
Duncan, Ourtia Page, .for complainants. Philip J. O'Reilly, for defe:ndapts. .
On application for preliminary injunction. . !
LACOMBE,J. This is an application for a preliminary to restrain the defendants from making and selling spiral wire springs, which, il1tn.e process of manUfacture, are subjected to heat, after the wire torm,. with the effect of restoring to the wire the is wound into Jl. strength alld elasticity lost iuwinding,-and in any way practicing the invention described and claimed in letters patent No. 116,266, granted to Alanson Carey, on June 27, 1871 The claim of the paten,t is for "the method of temp.eringfur.niture or other coiled wire springs, described." The ,process set forth. in)he specification consists in the subjllcting of the springs to a degree .ofheat knownasf'spr-ing temper heat, which is about six hundred degrees,' more or least for about eight minutes. The patent has been: several timesoefore the courts, (Cary v.Wolf, 24 Fed. Rep, 139, 141; Cary
v:
i lteported by Edward G. Benedict,
of the New Yor'k bar.
SINGER MANUF1G 00."'. SPRINGFIELD FOUNDRY 00.
80S
Spring-Bed CO., 27 Fed. Rep. 299, 31 Fed. Rep. 344,) and has been sustained to the extent of covering such process, "when the springs are kept below red heat." It may be that the patent is sufficiently broad to cover any degree of heat whatever; but that has not as yet been held by the courts which have had it under consideration, and therefore, upon application for preliminary injunction, the patent will be presumed valid only to the extent expressly covered by the decisions referred to. Upon the caSe as it now stands the weight of evidence indicates that the defendants, in the process used by them, heat the springs above this limit. It may be that the defendant's affidavits are disingenuous, and that when the later details of their process, now so briefly described, shall be set forth, it will appear that they do infringe the patent even when given the limited ,construction which would confine it to a heating not above red heat. , This motion, however, can only be decided upon the papers beforetbe, court, and giving due weight to the sworn statements presented py both sides. The, motion, therefore, is denied, with leave to renew should the complainant hereafter be able to produce such further evidence as to the defendant's prqcess pf manufacture as will indicate that the claim'of the patelltis in,fringed by
MANUF'G
Co.
SPRINGFIELD FOUNDRY
Co. et al. PAR..... .
. (Oircuit (fourt, D. Ma88ac1tu8etts. April 2, 1. PATEN'l'SFOB INVENTIONs-:.INFRINGEMENT-PATENTFOR SEPARATE REPAIRS.,
Where different parts of a machine are covered by separate patents, a pilrchaser of such machine from the patentee, who replaces one of the parts or elements covered by an individual patent, when ,worn out, is guilty of an iDfringeDJ.ent. . . It is within, ,the discretiQD of the .court to ,decide whether or nota bill in equity is DJ.ultifarious in its nature,' such question d&periding upon the cil'culnstances <if 'each individual case. - . . . . ' . " :,.
EQUITl'......
In Eq)lity. Action for infringement of patent. C. F. Perki,rtJJ, for complainant. J. L. S. Roberts, for defendant Duckworth. COLT, J .. This suit is brought for the infringement of the sixth claim da.ted October 8, 1878, all the claims of of letters pateJ;lt. No. letters patent No. 229,629, dated July 6, 1880, l:!nd the secondcla.im of letters patent No. 274,359, dated March 20,.1883. These several patents were-issued to the complainant for improvements in sewing-tri'l1chines. The bill has been taken pro confesso as against the Springfield controversy is between the complaiD.Foundry allt and the remain:ing defendant, Duckworth. Duckworth is a machin-
