nmERAJ, REPORTER:, vol.
41.
suits against purchasers .orusers of a patented article, Seems to be ·recogniZed in this country, a.nd to be founded upon sound principles of v. Stow.e1l, 16 Fed. equity. Ide v. FJngine 00:.,31 Fed. Rep. 901; Rep; 783; Birdaell v. Ma'r/,ufgcturing Co., 1 Hughes, (U. S.) 64. Also the unreported cases of National Cash Register Co. v. Bensinger Self-Adding Cash Register 00., decided by Judge BLODGETT in the northern district of Illinois, and Consolidated Store Service Co. v. Lamson CO'f/$olidated Store Service 00., decided by Judge NELSON of this district. Recognizing the existence of the power of this court to restrain the complainant, as prayed for, the 'only question which remains is whetherthe defendants affidavits which entitles them to this have made out a case upon relief. I think an examinatic>ll o'f'tHe affidavits shows that the numerous suits brought byth,eqomPlainaljlt against the custoIDElrs 9f the vexatiou!l'andoppressive,and that therefore an injunCtion I;\s.prayed !or., "n',; Injunction granted. , }
the
.,. MORLEY SEWING-MACH.
Co. et al. V. SHUTE et al. .' SA.ME v.'MATIllsdJi.'h 'iIi
(No. 2,671.) , .. 1, -' ') , ;' . 'i
(OircW£t Oou'l1, D,,·Massa,ch1,tsjJftll. December 17, 1889.)
.'
CO.
6tck.
v.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. New Hampshire. December 17,1889.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-BUTTON SEWING MACHINES.
.
Letters patent No. 236,350, for a machine for sewing shank-buttons on fabrics, 1881,'to,James B:.,:iMrley. and .othilrs. by a mael).i:ne manufactured under letters patent N0.268,869, Issued November 28, 1882, to Joseph Mathison and others. Following Moriey·Sewtng-1Hachine 00. v. Lancaster, 9l:iup. Ct. Rep. 2119.
In Equity. , BerijarnJi?r F; Thurswn and 'Ambr08elEastman, for complainants.' "',' 1 Jamea E. Maynadier Brait"', for defendants. COLT,. J. . Upon an papers in theSe cases, I'think the petitions should be granted. Looking at the grounds upon which the supreme. court base their decisibn in Morley Swing-Machi1ie. Co'. v. ·La'J1caster,129U. S.263, 9 Rep. 299, lam of opinion thaLth:e Mathison No.3 machine comes within the scope of that· decision, and that it is an infringement of the second and thirteenth claims of the Morley,pJ!.tent;.".. I do notfeel in ,view of.the opinion bf the supreme court, to again construe the Morley patent, or compaare'what,is covered by it with defendants' machine. With the past litigation upon :the Morley patent before me, it·isSufficient' thatlshouMsta,w p:l.y'oon.clusions. , . . '"
V. SARGENT. '
In case N9'. 2,675, I shall ,adjudge the defendants in conte!11pt with respect to Mathison No.3 machine. It is not clear to me that the defendants are guilty of contempt for the collection of royalties under their leases; and therefore I shall onlj' hold them in contempt on the first ground. Petitions granted.
WOLLENSAK '/1. SARGENT (Oircuit Oourt,
et al., (two cases.) January 18, 1890.)
The invention described in letters patent, reissue No. 9,307, issued to J oho 'F;Wol'; lensak, July 20, 1880, which merely: pro:vides for a proper support for the upright rod of a transom,lUter to prevent lts being bent by the weigbt of the transom,conOf a guide orloop beyond the rod's junction witb' the liftin¥ arm, and ths extensiOll of tberod to' tbe loop, is noll a patentable device. FoUowmg , '3SFed', Rep. 840. . . ", , ':l.' OF CLA.iM. , ' I,t appearing both intberei!jsued patent, and in the patentee's statement 'to the patellt-office, thattbe guide above the junctionpf the operatillg rod with the liftillg arm, and' the of the rod beyond,the junction, were represented' a's the improvement,a,claim fl;lr'tlle upper guide, in combination with tbe ,prolonged rod, !1nd th!3,lifting, arm, cannot .be cQnstr;ued.to illplude, also, lowe,r guides, apd a 10\lklng devlCe, on the ground that the inwntlOn was'ot 8substantlallyentire transom lifter, Bnd liftingB.J:m. ' , , 11. S,UIE-SKy-LIGHT LIFTERS., ' " . " , The sky-ligbt lifter de!!cribedin patent No: 191,088, ,issued May 22, 1817{' to John F. Wollensak, havlDg a fixed gUlde bar, 'a slidmg block: 1fting rods"and a looking' bolt attached to and moving with tbe sliding bloclr, is a patentab1eimprovllment, and not anticipated by letterll patent No. 8,/,,668, illsued March 9, 1869,to Georgll Hayes, which had a fixed bolt attached to the bUilding so as to loek the sliding bar.' , , , . .4,. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.
1.
PATENTS
lNVllNTIONS-PATlNTABIT.ITy-..rRANSOM LIFTERS.
in letters, patent No. 226,.3113, iSBul.'dApril6,1880 toFrank A, Reiber,having a fixed guide bar, lif.ting arms, and o,perating rod, wIth an enlarged upper end in wbicb is a pin engaging witb holes in tbe bar and dis6Qgaged . bya twist of the rOd, is an infringement of the first' claim'of said 1111,088, having a fixed guide bar and a sliding block with a locking bolt by a cord, with wbicb tbe sliding block is moved, but not of the secon 'clalm; ip. which tbe presence of tbe cord to act on tbe bolt as described is essentiato Following v. Sargent, llilFed. Rep, 840." ". .
,
In Equity. ,Bills for infringemElDtofletters The third, of .letterspatent No. 9,307 is as foJJows: "(3) G. arranged above the junction of the lifting armand up:right rod, incqlIlbina,tion witQ 'the prolongedrod,h, the' guide, G.,a,nda.riD. A. ,substantially as and for the specified." .' ,
The first
claims
are asfollmvs:
"(I) The sliding block. 0, .carrying the spring locking bolt, g.incombination witb the fixed gujde bar, B, connecting rod or h,and tbe,oper.ating ,cord or cords,of. sl)bstantiaUy as described. for the purpusespecified., (2) The ,(:olI)binatjon 'of tlleoperating cord. f. with the spri!'lg locking 'bolt, .q;aild, the sliding bloc'k;! C. to which the sash i's conneeted.'arranged as descfLbed, so tl13t the act of'ipuHlng the cord backward shall dillehgage tbelocklng',bolt ,continued downwllrdpull, upon the same cOl'd shall. " ' :.,;' J'aise the sash, substantially as described." '