ail;
J'1U)ERAT.. REPORTER,: vo1Aki
in;sfn;mMerofgreatconcem,land.i'nipdrtanceto his own ,personal If you question irithe:affirmative, then you cannot properly any as to,the guilt of the defendants., Oil the. other hand, if the proof oft 'guilt leaves your minds in a' state of such uncertain(y or wantof:convi<!ti0n as would deter or prevent a prudent man from; acting or prooeedibg in matters of great moment and concern tohimself,'that character of uncertainty or indecision would constitute a reasonable doubt which the'defendants are entitled to havt'l the benefit of. y ourvetdict respond to' each count oithe indictment, for the reason that each count contains a 'distinct and substantive charge or offem'le against the defendants;: Ii you find the ,defendants guilty on all the counts, you will say; by youl'foYeman: I'We find the delimdants guilty as charged in the indictment." If you find then not guilty on any of the: counts, you will returDa general verdict of not guilty. If you nnd!thedefendants guilty ODsome of the counts, and not'g'uilty on, others" you wUl specify in, your verdict the' oountson which you find them gUilty t and those onwhichyou find them not guilty. If you find ,someoUhe'defendants guilty as charged in uHor some of the counts, you will retilln'your verdict accordingly, naming such defendant, and 'him guilty. specifying the count or counts on which you I now:'lea,ve :the case in your :hands, gentlemen of the jury, feeling assured :tIhat, from the close attention you have given the testimony as it was introduced, and from your ability and willingness to weigh it properlyand'fairly, you will return an honest, upright, and impartial United States and the verdict,' and, a: ,true deliverance make between accused.,' ' i
!;{
',(
Court, E. D. NewYO'rk., iannary 25,1890.)
l.P.a.TBN'l'l! ;pdB bnNTIONs--INPRINGBllI:Blt,.....WUTE-TRAPS.
Letter8patent No. 286,746, for a waste-trap, ,were i8sued 00t0ber16, 1888, to Samuel Jjl.,'l'homIloS, who stated that the, object of his invention was a waste-trap, "wherein the'seaU1 is intbeupper portion, where the water <toes not come inciontact With it. ", .accoDlplished thill objElot by oastingthe central partition, for about half itslenS'lih frop:! the bottom, IIQli4 trap, leaving the upper part, ' of the pSrtitiOlifreefrom the' 1I1dewaJ.11I, 110 that thll1 portion ciould be bent down infriDged by,traps made nndet patent No. 871,107, fOr for, blloslps, ,granted October 4, 1887" ailio to' SamueE. TIrOmas, tn much of the partition 8.!l lies the exit-pipe fa also clUlt i,QtegnU witb the si4ewaus,',thus avoiding the objectionable seam. PATENT: ' ;,
S. ,
a is void by, antloipation by an foreign patent, the patentee 'IS 8at0I>pell trom tJrgingtlUit as a defense to a SUIt by his alisiinee for an of the patent. ,' : : " ' , ji
. IQ:Equity
forinjunotion.
, ' :ADEE ,. THOMAS.
:
'34'3
,Final hearihgofsdit in' equity to' resl:raininfringementrif a" patent ,originally gr8inted to defendant; and by him assigntld to complainants. A. v. Bi'iesen, for complainants. Louis W. FroSt, fordefendarit. LACOMBE., J.The.p.atent upon which complainants bring 8uitisNo. 286,746, for a waste-trap, dated October 16,'1883, and issued originally :to the defendant.· O'n' J111y ].'), 1888, he assigned It: the complainants .for aval;qable .In of. the wllste-traps whiyh d.e. :now mllkes agaiqstthe chargEl:of only !lviden<:e introduced is found in fhreepatents,two prior and one subsequent to that sued upon. The subsequent patent is No. 371,107, October 4, 1887, granted to defendant for "waste-trap for etc." That defendant manufactures traps under a subsequent patent, and that such.subsequent patent covers improvements of' greatfn'erit;-(ifit does,) is wholly the do i.n fact lOfnnge upon the patent m suit. There 18 ,DO expert testimony 10 the prior of the art, .or of earlier patents, case as to one of whIch was nofeven set up 10 the a.N\lHIJ:...__ branch of the .. p8;pep!: "!3y the \the sued upon' It ISllpp,arent tliat no·Clalm was made for tqtps'the (jfwhich was the presence y f!f the ap, and covering the av.".a.ni incli.lla.·t.ion to ·. the .b. ad .. . .....·.. . of lateral to the; sewer, "as in English patent No. 1,504 of 1858." No as to wlid this patent is to; be found in proof. mflde is:, '. " . .1 (1) In a w . . to be inserted In.a Une of pipe, the combination, with the ini ."ptpe, a',antl exit-pipe. d, of cup, b,and the partition, f. the and united to the inupper end ofhvhich is inclined towards d, But/l:lta:1itiaUy as set forth. terior of. the pup, b, a!tq\l.e said
the specificatio6 shows clearly the object of the invention. mauufactu:oo' of traps for plumbers' use, great care has to be them oia desirable and efficient form, W!!:p:gJ,jr. that the cores can .beeasily removed after and. also in castmg. It IS alsodeW!tt'l'ffil to have no seam In of the trap where the waste water remains, as the rough or projecting edges of this seam are liable to catch and retain particles that eventually will in,;tenere with,.,the of this seam is also liable to open or, separate fro,m. expansionapd colltraetion produced·by heat and cpld,·and thus become the most serious'defect in n, statell that the "object ,of his invention is the making of a cheap, efficient, and reliable waste-trapl wherein the i in: the upper :po!1Jon,. wbere th.e, water does not come into conwithifi') and ill ,of sUchlJhapethat the C()res can; be and ,quickly removed after :casting." Figs. 1 and 2 of the patent ,soo..vtben:mnneril,lwl'lich }le_$.Ccomplished these results. ': ,:,: 'fhetrap, is constl'ilcted.ofthe upper and the bottom :Qr cU.p .J llppet·. ,a, :halJ :tbe. inlet-pipe J ) a: J and11ihe' botI
344
DDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 41·
.tom portion is constructed with the exit-pipe, d, and cleaniilg-plug, e. as usual.. Sometimes the inlet-pipe, a', is at thatside olthe cup, b, which,isoPP9site to the ,pipe, d. The central partition, i, is cast solid , with the walls of the trap, from 1 to 2, while the upper portion is free fromtlle side walls, and elliptical in the shape of its edges, so that this porti<?ll of the partitionQlliy be bent down into the cup, b, and its edges closely against the innersurface of the cup, b, as seen in Fig. 1. After, being so 'bent, they are soldered to the sides, and the parts a and bare.iUs() 'soldered at seam,c, when the two parts ofthetrap' are put >Traps constructed in: this way can be made )VIth facility, < . . ; :
I.,
·
.Flo·.!-
:.causethe oup, b,pipe, d,and partition can all be cast in one piece ina 'metallic mould, and the cores easily drawn out. Moreover, there islio ·seam below the water-line, as in other traps; all the parts belo,w the exit ,being .cast integral, objectionable features of a seam noted above 'are thus avoided. it needs: no evidence to show that a waste-trap inwhich a central partition or:dll1tl; combines with the wastewater"soasto form a seal· against sewer gas, which may .be'effectual, and not subject· to leakage, iS8 patentable invention.' The mer.e combination, 'however, of a dam, bending over to and the exit-pipe, with the. waste water, is disclaimed. What ia the full ;extent o( this disclaimer is 'not appatent. as the English patent
ADEE V. THOMAS.
"
84:5
to which it refers was not introduced. But, giving the broadest con· struction to the disclaimer, there is quite enough left to sustain the patent. sued upon as one for a cast-lead trap with such a dam, wherein the casting is so managed that all the parts below the water-line are cast integral and without seam. Two prior patents were put in evidence by the defendant, viz. : EngUsh patent 4,849, to Garrett Claughton, November 27, 1879, and United States patent 246.453, to L. Brandeis, August 30, Both of these show the combination of an inclined dam, curving over towards and covering the exit-pipe. In the Brandeis patent the two parts ofthe trap are joined together below the water-line, being secured by a bushlng, or in any other suitable manner, so that the lower part milS, be unscrewed or detached from the upper, to examine or clear the trap;' In the absence of any expert evidence, it may be doubted such junction of the two parts of the trap is a seam of character referred to in the patent sued upon. Be that as it may, however, the English patent to Claughton seems plainly to shown casting in whic4.the parts below the water-line are cast integrally and without seam. The only apparent invention embodied in the patent sued upon is thilsshown to be anticipated. Nothing is left but minor details of construction, the conception of which would seem., to be within the, capacity, ofan, ordinarily skillful mechanic, and, if, the defendant were entitled to avail of sucha,defense, the patent should be held v6idforlaok of invention. The defendant, however, was himself the patentee oftpe pat,entsued upon, and the complainants hold it l1S his assigne,eI!. , It is well-settled Jaw that a. patentee cannot be heard to deny thll of his OWll patent against the assignee to whom he has sold and fl'anilferred it. As to the rest of the world, the patent may be void, bi.I{ the!lsis estopped from urging that defense against his assignee.purifier Co; v. Guilder, 9 F.ed. Rep. 155; Curran v. Bird8all, 29 Fed.Rep_ 835. . . . ',' WQQ.te,ver improvemell.ts upon his original (now sued upon) may be covered by his second patent, under which he is now making wa.ste-traps, the articles he makes do manifestly contain the distinctive features Of the original patent. They have a dam fastened to the side walls, and curving over the exit-pipe, a feature probably covered by the disclaimer, but 80 much of this dam as lies below the exit is cast integral with the side walls, thus the objectionable seam; and this feature is ·not within the terms of the disclaimer, nor could it be stricken outo! the patent without leaving the same void for lack of invention. is therefore plain. Let there be a decree for complainant·.
818 'U
DDEBAL REPOl1TER,
vol. 41.
bEE
etal.
'II. THOMAS.
,(O:trcuit COU'ft, E. D. 1.
february 17,1890.) .' '.
Patent No.ll86,941, issue4 July 81, 1888, to SamUel E. Thomas, for a process of attaching,wroUght lead lipeto C8st metal, applicable "to water·closetpipes and in many eth!!l' instances, 'is aJ;l ;Infringement on patent No. 871,107, issued October 4, 1887, to S'amuel E. Thomas, for attaching wrought lead pipes to cast metal for "wallte.;tl'aps.for basina, closets, etc. II .!' , .TO DBNY VALU)ITY OF PATBNT.
A who .has assigned his patent cannot deny its valid;ity, as aga!nst hla . 6811ignee; on 'the ground that it infringes another patent preVlously acquired by _.' .him" application fill' lihe patent is suJnciently broad to include the f:!ne. .. .' .
!'
"lIn 'Equity'.J.Bill for injunction. '., . 'Kiw.uth,for complainants. Frost&:' Cc)e',fordefendant·..
-and
... ;1':[,: 'This to rest1'l1in infringement of ent issued: JUly '31, 1888, for process of castillg.. As stated in the cla-bn, theinvention,is a new method of attaching 8; wrought lead tnetW, which process consists in "first dipping !theend of pipe to' into molten· tin, and in then inserting the tinned end of the 'mould 'iii:#hich the casting'is tobe made, 'the said pipe fotniillg'pitr1; ofJ'the wall of the' mould cavity, and in then casting the the end of the lead pipe;" .rri the specifiootion it is stated that the'procesa}s applicable' to casting flanges on ,water-closet pipes, in> ri:iallY",other .instancl*l;. 'The. defendant makes waste-traps which are (plainty . itlfriligeinents of this patent, claiming the. right to do so under an. e rliel'patent, No. 371,107, issued to' him'Octo'ber 4, 1887. lt The third claim of that 'l)atentis in the following word$:
"(3) The method herein specified of forming lead traps, con8isting in placIng in the moUld and around' !fhe core apiece of wrought lead' pipe. with' the _ndportion·tnereof andcastlng into the mould and around the cores the metal that furm8 the body of the trap and theoutlet·pipe. so that the with the end of the wrought pipe" and the J;(fipectiye . If.. ' .
The'improvement, as stated in tbespecification, "relates to wastetrapsfot baSins, closets, etc:." Whether or no, by the use of this language,' the earlier 'patente:erestricted his right to enforce· his monopoly, it ilJ evident that there would be no inthereafterapplyingthe very processwhich he therein described for making a waste-trap to awater"closet pipe. Against the complainants' claim for infringement, therefore, the older patent would be a complete defense, establishing conclusively the invalidity of the patent upon which they sue. Can the defendant, however, avail of that defense? The defendant was himself the patentee of the patent sued upon, and assigned it to the complainants, May 12, 1887. His assignment described his invention as a new and improved process of casting metal to wrought lead pipe) for which he was about to