wards, A. assigned the patent to R.,
who knew of the rights of H., and R.
proceeded to make and sell in New 8.
York the patented article. On a bill
filed by H. against R.: Held, that R.
ought to be enjoined from making
and selling. Hapgood v. Rosenstock,

5. Although three successive assign-
ments of an invention to three suc.
cessive assignees are on record in the
Patent Office, a patent for the inven-
tion, issued to the first assignee, is 9.
valid, and the title vests instantly in
the third assignee. Consolidated
Electric Light Co. v. Edison Electric
412
Light Co.,

that the bill would lie. Toledo Mow-
er and Reaper Co. v. Johnston Har-
vester Co.,
332

See 4, 7, 9, 11, 12.
EQUITY, 1 to 4, 6.
PRACTICE, 6, 7.

11. Injunction.

18. A licensee under a patent repudiat-
ed the license and infringed the pat-
ent. On a motion for a preliminary
injunction, he undertook to show that
the plaintiff did not make the inven-
tion: Held, that sufficient doubt was
raised as to the validity of the pat-
ent to warrant the denial of the mo-
tion. Brown v. Lapham,
475

See 4.

12. Repeal of Patent.

19. Letters patent for an invention
were set aside, on a bill filed by the
United States, against the patentee
and a co-owner, where it appeared
that the patentee had set up, in his
application, that he was an original
and first inventor, and it appeared
that he was not an original inventor
at all, although the co-owner had
not participated in the fraud, or en-
forced the patent as valid, but the
latter was not charged with costs.
The United States v. Gunning,

16. Where a bill in equity for the in-
fringement of letters patent, praying
an injunction and an account, was
sworn to six days before the patent
would expire, and the bill was filed
two days, and the subpoena served
three days, after the bill was sworn
to, and a rule of Court required eight
days notice of a motion for an injunc-20.
tion, and it did not appear that an ac-
tion at law would be an inadequate
remedy for the wrong complained of:
Held, on demurrer, that the bill would
not lie. Mershon v. J. F. Pease Fur-
nace Co.,
329

17. Where a bill in equity for the in-
fringement of letters patent was sworn
to twenty-nine days before the patent
would expire, and filed three days af
terwards, and there was time, before
the patent would expire, to give
notice of a motion for a provisional
injunction and to obtain it, and the
bill set forth special circumstances
for equitable relief, to restrain the
sale, after the expiration of the pa-
tent, of infringing machines made
during its life: Held, on demurrer,

21.

31

A decision by the Commissioner of
Patents of a question of interference
between two inventors, one having a
patent, on which decision in favor of
the other a patent was issued to him,
is not a bar to a suit in equity by the
first patentee against the other, un-
der 4,918 of the Revised Statutes,
to have the second patent declared
void, on account of priority of inven-
tion in the first patentee. Hubel v.
Tucker,
297

13. Action for Penalty.

In an action for a penalty, under
4,901 of the Revised Statutes, for
marking unpatented articles as pat-
ented, if the defendant has a patent
which he claims covers the articles

(1.) Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik
-Coloring matter produced from
alpha napthol.

23. The claim of letters patent No. 225,-
108, granted, March 2d, 1880, to Ba-
dische Anilin and Soda Fabrik, as as-
signee of Heinrich Caro, for an im-
provement in coloring matters pro-
duced from alpha-naphthol, namely,
"As a new manufacture, the coloring
matter, or sulpho-acid of dinitro-al-
pha-naphthol, obtained from the ac-
tion of nitric acid upon the within de-
scribed alpha-naphthol sulpho-acids,
substantially in the manner set forth,
or by any other method which will
produce a like result," is a valid claim.
Pickhardt v. Packard,

23

29. The invention consists in subjecting
spiral springs, of steel wire, made by
coiling, to spring temper heat, about
600 degrees, more or less, for about
8 minutes, to restore their elasticity
and strength.

30.

id.

The patent is infringed by effecting
that result by the use of a higher heat
than 600 degrees.

id

24. Caro having been the first to dis-
cover the process by which the de-
structive sulpho-acids of alpha-naph-
thol, capable of treatment with nitric
acid without the destruction of their
sulpho-groups, could be produced,
was entitled to claim broadly the pro-
duct when made by his process,
whether, as part of the process, the
treatment of the sulpho-acids with ni- (4.) Hopson and Brooks-Sewing ma-
tric acid should be according to his
method or by any other equivalent
method which would produce his pro-
duct.

id.

chine needle.

31. The claim of letters patent granted
to Hopson and Brooks, July 4th,
1871, for an "improvement in sew-
ing machine needles," namely, “A
sewing machine needle possessing
the peculiarities specified, and form-
ing a new article of manufacture,"
is invalid, in view of prior patents
granted to the same persons for the
machinery for making such needles,
any novelty in the needles being the

result of the functions of the machin-
ery. Excelsior Needle Co. v. Union
Needle Co.,
147

granted to the New York Bung and
Bushing Company, August 25th,
1883, for an improvement in bungs
and bushings, (the original patent,
No. 141,473, having been granted to
Samuel R. Thompson, August 5th,
1873, for an improvement in bush-
ings for faucet-holes, and re-issued as
No. 8,483 to McKean, Jackson and
Brown, November 12th, 1878,) are in-
valid. New York Bung and Bushing
Co. v. Doelger,

167

38. The first re-issue having been de-
clared invalid, the second was taken,
substantially like the original patent
in form, except that the bushing was
limited to wood, the first claim of
the second re-issue, and the second
of the original patent, being alike,
except that the word "wooden" was
not in the latter: The combination
of a wooden bushing, a, and casing,
b, constructed and arranged as de-
scribed, and for the purposes speci-
fied." A prior patent described a
bung and bushing like Thompson's,
without designating any material:
Held, that it was no invention to make
such prior device of wood.
id.

39. Held, also, that the defendant did
not infringe.
ia.

40.

36. An axle with the axle-box enlarged (9.)
at the inner end, and projecting over
and enclosing the collar, existed be-
fore; and an axle with an extra loose
collar slipped over its square bar and
pushed near to the wearing collar,
leaving a chamber, as a "sand-box,"
between the two collars, existed be-
fore. Steele added the one to the
other, and made the whole solid, like
the ordinary wearing collar. The
arrangement was an actual and a
commercial success, but the extra
collar was used for the same purpose
as before, with no change in the
manner of applying it, except to make
it solid with the axle, the wearing
collar having long been made in the
same manner. The alteration was
an obvious and ordinary improve-
ment and not patentable.

id.

(8.) New York Bung & Bushing Co.-
Bung and bushing.

37. Re-issued letters patent No. 10,368,

Gold & Stock Telegraph Co.-Tele-
graphic printing instrument.

The second claim of re-issued let-
ters patent, No. 3,810, granted to the
Gold and Stock Telegraph Company,
as assignee of Edward A. Calahan,
January 25th, 1870, for an improve-
ment in telegraphic printing instru-
ments for registering the prices of
gold and stocks, (the original patent
having been dated April 21st, 1868,)
namely, "Two or more type-wheels
moving independently and controlled
by magnetism, and arranged so as to
print jointly or separately upon one
strip of paper in two or more lines,
substantially as specified," is valid.
Gold and Stock Telegraph Co. v.
Commercial Telegram Co.,

199

41. The novelty of the invention pointed
out.
id.
42. The word "jointly," in the claim,
does not mean, simultaneously, but