IMPORTED INVENTIONS.

It appearing from the evidence that the machines relied upon to anticipate the
complainant's invention did not arrive in this country until after the date of
complainant's invention, Held that such machines have no bearing upon the
question of novelty. *Weston Dynamo Electric Machine Company v. Arnoux et
al., 293.

IMPROVEMENTS. See Infringement, 28; Interfering Patents.

INADVERTENCE. See Invention Shown but not Claimed, 3; Reissues, 4, 26, 27, 28, 30,
36.

INCOMPLETE DRAWINGS. See Priority of Invention, 4.

INFRINGEMENT. See Anticipation, 1, 2, 4; Assignments, 6, 7; Construction of Specifi-
cations and Patents, 8; Copyright, 3; Costs of Suit, 1; Damages and Profits;
Delay, 1; Evidence; Injunction; Interfering Patents; Liability; Particular
Patents: 1, Barker; 2, Bauman ; 4, Bing; 5, Bostwick; 6, Bostock; 7, 10, Brown;
13, Bull; 18, Bussey; 19, Cherry; 20, Crosby and Kellogg; 29, Hayes; 33,
Illingworth; 37, Lloyd; 38, Lyman; 42, Matthews; 50, Newbury; 55, Peters;
60, Schirmer and Betts; 62, Smith; 64, Van Geasen; 66, Zwicki; Reissues, 18;
Trade-Marks, 6, 9, 12, 13; Violation of Injunction.

1. PROCESS-INFRINGEMENT.-Defendants treated tobacco in a method similar to
the process patented by plaintiffs, except that defendants made use of an
equivalent for the gum-arabic used by the plaintiff's to produce the same effect
as that rendered by plaintiffs' process. Held that this was infringement.
*Kimball v. Hess, 79.

2. INFRINGEMENT.-The accomplishment of the same result, but by different
means, does not constitute infringement. *Dryfoos v. Wiese, 100.

3. DEFENSES-INFRINGEMENTS OF PATENT WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF PATENTEE
DOES NOT WORK AN ABANDONMENT.-Where infringements by various parties
and for considerable periods have been shown to have taken place during the
life of the patent, but the circumstances fail to establish acquiescence in the
instances when the infringement was known to the owners of the patent,
there exists no such laches as would defeat an accounting. *Adams v. Howard
et al., 117.

4. PRACTICE In Courts-CouRT WILL DETERMINE THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY,
EVEN IF PATENT EXPIRES PENDING SUIT.-There is no doubt of the pro-
priety of decreeing an accounting, although the patent has expired since the
commencement of the suit, and although for that reason there should not be
an injunction. The jurisdiction of a court of equity having been legiti-
mately invoked by the complainant, he will not be sent away without redress
because all the redress to which he was originally entitled cannot now be.
awarded to him. The court will retain the cause in order to completely de-
termine the controversy. *Id.

5. INFRINGEMENT-EQUIVALENT.-The use by defendants of the combination of
the patentee, except that an equivalent element is substituted for one of the
elements of the latter's combination, is an infringement. *Reay v. Raynor et
al., 153.

6. INFRINGEMENT-SILENCE NOT ESTOPPEL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.-Where
it does not appear that the patentee led the defendants into any expenditure
or course of conduct, by his silence when he ought to have spoken, which they
would not have made or followed if he had spoken, an infringement will not
be avoided. *Id.

7. INFRINGEMENT.--If an invention made and sold prior to the date of the pat-
entec's invention is not an anticipation, it is not an infringement of it. * Id.

INFRINGEMENT-Continued.

8. When a patent is for a combination, one element of which is a gear-wheel with
a cone supported in a peculiar manner, and the defendant uses the gear-
wheel with the cone, but the latter is supported differently, though the ele-
ments employed by the defendant are the equivalents of those of the com-
plainant in the patent combination, Held that the defendant takes the com-
plainant's combination and infringes his patent. *Mundy v. Lidgerwood Man-

ufacturing Company, 223.

9. The claim in Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,321, granted to Charles Graebe and
Charles Liebermann, April 4, 1871, is: "Artificial alizarine produced from
anthracene or its derivatives by either of the methods herein described, or by
any other method which will produce a like result." Unless it is shown that
the method described in this patent was followed to produce the defendant's
article, or unless it is shown that that article could not be produced by any
other process, the defendant's article does not infringe the patent. Cock-
rane et al. v. Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik, 230.

10. Every patent for a product or composition of matter must identify it so that it
can be recognized aside from the description of the process for making it, or
else nothing can be held to infringe the patent which is not made by that
process. Id.

11. The scope of a patented invention may be so narrowed by the prior state of the
art that infringement cannot be adjudged to exist unless there has been an
appropriation in substantial form of construction of the identical elements
which the inventor had a right to claim as new in his patent. *Saladee v.
Racine Wagon and Carriage Company et al., 257.

12. To constitute infringement it must appear that all the elements of a patented
combination, or their equivalents, have been appropriated. *Id.

13. The bill dismissed upon the ground of non-infringement, without deciding the
validity of the reissue patent. *Id.

14. The defendants are held to infringe the patented invention, notwithstanding
they have introduced some improvements, have employed a well known me-
chanical equivalent, and made certain minor differences, the two mechanisms
being in 'all essential particulars alike. Worswick Manufacturing Company

et al. v. City of Buffalo et al., 267.

15. The burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that the complainant is
not the first inventor, and a mere preponderance of the evidence in that di-
rection is not enough. The proof must be of such a convincing character as
to satisfy the court beyond a reasonable doubt. *Id.

16. Held that defendants infringed the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and sev-
enth claims of Reissue No. 8,840, and the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh
claims of Reissue No. 8,846, in the construction of lumber-driers built by
them in the State of Wisconsin. *Burdsall v. Curran et al., 273.

17. Slight mechanical deviations from the specific directions given in both of these
patents, Reissues Nos. 8,840 and 8,846, when the main features are incorpo-
rated, will not avoid the charge of infringement. *Id.

18. A structural difference iu form and size does not avoid infringement if the same
work is done by substantially the same means. *Sewing Machine Company v.
Frame, 281.

19. When an invention is both new and useful, the want of public acquiescence
cannot avoid infringing parties. Hussey Manufacturing Company v. Willlam

Deering & Co. et al., 286.

20. A structure embracing all the elements of the patented invention, and also an
additional feature not found in the latter, constitutes an infringement of the
patent. *Roemer v. Simon et al., 288.

INFRINGEMENT-Continued.

21. Where the form of the defendant's device is different from the complainant's,
its mode of operation is different, and the result of its operation is somewhat
different, it cannot be said to be the same or substantially like the complain-
ant's invention, and there is no infringement. *Field v. Ireland et al., 292.
22. It has never been held that an equivalent known at the date of the invention
could be used without infringing the patent; such a holding, if generally
adopted, would amount practically to the destruction of the law of equiva-
lents. "Kuhl v. Mueller et al., 315.

23. If it is plain that the defendants have embodied in their device the essential
elements of organization contained in the complainant's fastener, or made a
fastener that in its construction exhibits the equivalents of the patented de-
vice, the defendant's must be held infringers. *Sessions v. Romadka et al., 340.
24. It is for the court, as a matter of law, to construe a patent, and for the jury, as
a question of fact, to determine whether it has been infringed, and the amount
of damages that should be allowed. "National Car-Brake Shoe Company v.
Terre Haute Car and Manufacturing Company et al., 367.

25. Where one party manufactures one portion of the device covered by a combi-
nation claim, and another party manufactures the other part of the combina-
tion, and it does not appear that the two parts are capable of separate use,
Held that the parties are joint infringers. *Schneider v. Pountney, 392.

26. And the defendants cannot protect themselves by invoking the well-settled
rule that where a patent is for a combination merely it is not infringed by one
who uses one or more of the parts, but not all, to produce the same results,
either by themselves or by the aid of other devices. *Id.

27. Even if there is no proof that the defendant had made an actual prearrange-
ment with any particular person to supply the other portion of the combina-
tion, it will be inferred from the circumstances of the case that it is the intent
of the defendants that such other portions shall be added to their article of
manufacture. *Id.

28. IMPROVEMENT UPON FORMER INVENTION-INFRINGEMENTS.-Letters Patent
for an inprovement made to a patented invention by additional features hav-
ing no material effect upon the character, operation, or result produced do
not confer upon the subsequent patentee a right to use the original device.
* Bostock v. Goodrich, 404.

29. It appearing that the use of the proportions named in the patent did not pro-
duce a new and useful result, and that the defendants had not employed the
exact proportions specified, the bill should be dismissed. *Welling et al. v、
Crane et al., 419.

30. Where a patent clearly shows and describes a machine whose use necessarily
involves the production of a certain process, no other person can afterward
patent that process. The first patentee is entitled to his mechanisin for every
use of which it is capable, even though he did not foresee all of them. *New
Process Fermentation Company v. Koch, 421.

31. A claim to the process of maturing and browning coffee by subjecting it in its
uncured condition to the direct action of steam is not infringed by the ap-
plication of heat only to the coffee in that condition, even though the heat
generates steam from the moisture in the coffee. The steam cannot be omit-
ted and the process be the same. *Arnold v. Phelps et al., 428.

32. The defendant's sulky-plow, using a link instead of a pitman and holding the
lever on the ratchet by a trigger-spring instead of a flat spring, the sliding
axle-arm and the lever being found in ealier patents, Held that such sulky.
plows did not infringe Robinson's first claim. *Gilbert v. Weir Plow Com-
pany, 505.

INFRINGEMENT IN PART. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 8; Inter-
fering Patents.

INFRINGEMENT OF A TRADE-MARK. See Trade-Marks, 22, 23, 24, 25. INJUNCTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 9; Contempt: Delay, 1;

Practice in the Courts, 1; Trade- Marks, 6, 13, 16, 25; Fiolation of Injunction.

1. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-GRANTED WHERE DEFENDANTS ARE ESTOPPED.— A party having induced a complainant to acquire a patent and to engage in making and selling articles under it, is estopped from contesting the validity of it for the purpose of a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a second party who was cognizant of all the facts and seems to have been the principal promoter of the transaction occupies no better position. *The Time Telegraph Company v. Carey et al., 119.

2. INJUNCTION-NOT TO ISSUE WHEN IT WOULD WORK INJUSTICE.-An injunction should not issue when it would work great harm to one party without corresponding benefit to the other, at least where adequate protection can be afforded by other meaus. *Swift v. Jenks et al., 208.

3. PATENT

SUITS—INFRINGEMENT—ÅBANDONMENT-INJUNCTION.—If a defendant has, before suit brought, abandoned the manufacture and sale of an infringing machine, and the court is satisfied that the abandonment was in good faith and final, an injunction ought not to be granted. But if the defendant, after such abandonment, has engaged in the manufacture and sale of another machine which is also an infringing machine, and suit is brought for both infringements, the court will retain the whole cause under its control, and make the injunction and order to account to apply to the manufacture and sale of both. Odell et al. v. Stout et al. 461.

INOPERATIVE PATENTS. See Reissues, 19, 27.

If a patent is inoperative so far as not to cover all that the party is entitled to claim, it is inoperative within the meaning of the provisions of the statute relating to reissues. *Giant Powder Company v. Safety Nitro-Powder Company et al., 161.

INSUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents; Reissues, 7, 13, 19, 20, 25, 32, 33, 38; Specifications, 2.

INTEREST. See Damages and Profits, 2.

INTERFERENCE. See Appeals; Appeals to the Secretary of the Interior; Priority of

Invention.

1. PARAGRAPH 1 OF RULE 93 AND THE BEGINNING OF RULE 94 Construed— CONFLICT IN CLAIMS DEFINED.-The spirit of the rule of interference is not that claims must conflict in terms in order to constitute an interference, but that the subject-matter claimed must conflict. It is not essential that the claims should be so alike that the claim in any one case will apply just to the matter or device of the other or others. If the claim of one party will include that of another, there is au interference in fact. It should be settled in the Patent Office who is entitled to the broad claim, and this should appear as the result of an interference proceeding. Fr parte Upton, 26.

2. SUBSEQUENT PATENTS WITH BROADER CLAIMS. Neither the spirit of the law nor public policy sanctions the granting of patents with specific claims while applications with generic claims are still pending, the objection being that, whether the application with the generic claim belongs to the same party who has a specific claim under the genus, or is an application of a different party, a patent covering by a generic claim, if a subsequent patent, improperly extends the monopoly. Id.

3. No interference can lie except as between claimants of the same invention. If an applicant claims that which is shown in a previous patent, the patentee should be notified of it and an opportunity first offered to him to lay claim to the invention. Marvin v. Lillie, 178.

4. An interference cannot be declared with an improper divisional application. Er parte Holt, 43.

INTERFERING PATENTS. Where two patents cover distinct things they do not in-
terfere within the contemplation of section 4918 Revised Statutes, even
though one inventor takes the invention of the other to improve upon, and
thereby infringes the patent of the latter. *Pentlarge v. New York Bung and
Bushing Company et al., 304.

INTERLOCUTORY DECREES. See Practice in the Courts, 10, 11.

INVALID APPLICATIONS. Sev Oath of Inventor, 1, 3.
INVALIDATION OF PATENTS. See Priority of Invention, 2.

INVALIDITY OF PATENTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7; Ex-
perimental Use; Non-Patentability; Reissues, 1, 9, 26, 27, 28, 81.

In order to invalidate a patent on the ground of prior use, it is necessary to adduce
evidence of that high character which convinces the court beyond a reason-
able doubt. Everest v. The Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company (Limited), 375.
INVALID PATENTS. See Particular Patents: 1, Barker; 5, Bostwick; 13, Bull; 16,
Burdette; 19, Cherry; 22, Eagleton; 23, Earle; 25, Forncrook; 26, George;
27, Green; 39, 40, Matthews; 43, McMillan; 44, Mulligan; 46, Nation and Lit-
tle; 57, Robinson; 61, Smith; 65, Weir; Reissues, 31.

1. PATENTS OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD-RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT TO VACATE.-
There is no distinction between letters patent for an invention and for land
as regards the rights and remedies for vacating them when obtained by fraud.
The right is the same as that which a State has to annul the charter of a cor-
poration created by its legislature if obtained by fraud. *United States v.
Gunning et al., 93.

2. SAME PROPER REMEDY.-The appropriate remedy in behalf of the United States
when a patent for an invention has been obtained by fraud is by a bill in
equity. Id.

INVENTIONS. See Construction of Claims, 2; Construction of Specifications and Pat-
ents, 2; Evidence of Invention; Interference, 3; Non-Invention; Patentability, 2,
3, 4; Power of Attorney to Amend, 2.

1. INVENTION-SIMPLE CHANGE REMEDYING DEFECTS SUFFICIENT.-A simple
change, which others failed to discover, and which remedied a grave defect,
Held to constitute a patentable difference. * Adams v. Howard et al., 117.
2. When an inventor merely brings an old element into his machine, he makes no
invention; but where he does more-dispenses with certain parts, duplicates
others, rearranges, and simplifies the machine-he must be held to have made
au invention. Mundy v. Lidgerwood Manufacturing Company, 223.

3. Transferring the point of applying the lifting force of a spring from a point
behind the forward end of the beam to an arm on the coupling, to which the
beam is pivoted, Held to involve patentable invention. *The Brown Manu-
facturing Company v. Deere & Co., 380.

4. The fact that not only the defendants in this case, but other large manufacturers
of cultivators, have at once adopted substantially the same auxiliary lifting
devices shown in complainant's patent, is evidence of the popular acceptance
of this as a practical solution of many of the difficulties which had been
encountered in the attempt to use the older devices, and is such a change and
improvement as required more than mere mechanical skill, and brings this
device fairly within the domain of the patent laws. Id.

INVENTION SHOWN BUT NOT CLAIMED. See Abandonment, 1, 3, 4; Construc-
tion of Specifications and Patents, 5; Disclaimer under Rule 42; Division of Ap-
plication, 5; Reservation for Subsequent Patents; Subsequent Patents for Same
Invention, 1, 2, 3.

1. An application was filed December 11, 1882, certain claims of which were put
into interference. Under Rule 125 matter not in interference was with-
drawn from the first and made the basis of a second application, upon which
second application a patent was granted February 20, 1883. Said patent
9373 PAT-37