[United States Circuit Court-District of New Jersey.] REISSNER & FRAY vs. ANNESS & BLAUVELT. O. G., vol. xii, p. 842. In Equity.-By NIXON, Dist. J.-Decided November, 1877. Where, in answer to a bill of complaint for infringement, the defendants filed a plea involving three distinct grounds of defense, such plea was held bad for duplicity. The several matters, although relating in a general way to but a single defense, viz, the invalidity of the complainants' patent, were essentially independent of one another, and by their retention destroyed the very office of the plea, which is to secure singleness in the issue. The general rule is that a plea must not contain more defenses than one. It is not limited to one fact. It may embrace various facts; but they must all conduce to a single point on which the defendant rests his defense. (Stor. Eq. Pl., section 654.) If there is more than one distinct ground of defense to be urged, the defendant should set the matter forth by way of answer and not by plea. The defendants were accordingly permitted, either (1) to set down the pleas that had been filed as an answer, or (2) to elect within a time specified which of the several grounds of defense they would stand upon, and when such election had been made, the other grounds would be overruled. B. F. LEE for complainants. A. V. BRIESEN for defendants. NIXON, J.: The bill of complaint is filed against the defendants for infringement of certain letters patent, No. 7,751, reissued to John A. Fray, June 19, 1877, for "improvements in coal-oil stoves," to which the defendants have put in a plea embracing three distinct defenses, and which are, in effect, three several pleas, substantially as follows: (1) That the reissue to Fray was unlawful, because he had previously obtained a patent in Canada for the same invention, granted May 15, 1873, for the term of five years, and the reissue here was not limited to expire at the same time with the foreign patent. (2) That new matter was introduced into the reissue which was not shown and described in the original patent. (3) That, for the purpose of deceiving the public, the description in the reissued letters patent was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to the alleged invention. The plea or pleas were set down for argument, and the first question raised was whether the same were not bad for duplicity. The counsel for the defendants insist that they are not, because, although three distinct matters are alleged against the right of the complainants to recover, they all relate to a single defense, to wit, the invaldity of the complainants' patent. The office of a plea, in equity practice, is to present to the court a single point of defense. The rule is not a harsh one for the defendant, because, when he desires to avail himself of more than one matter of defense, he can resort to an answer, which affords him ample opportu nity; whereas, in common law proceedings, double pleas are allowed for the reason that the defendant has no other mode of presenting his various defenses to the court. The use of a plea, and the reasons for its allowance are, that it saves time, trouble, and expense; but if parties are permitted to multiply pleas, setting up different facts in avoidance of the plaintiff's claim, nothing is gained in these respects, and an answer is the proper course of pleading. The general rule is that a plea must not contain more defenses than one. It is not limited to one fact. It may embrace various facts; but they must all conduce to a single point on which the defendant rests his defense. (Sto. Eq. Pl., section 654.) The counsel for the defendants claims that be has only one plea, and that he has the right to allege therein three grounds of invalidity of the complainant's patent. The trouble about this view of the case is, that each one is an independent defense, having no relation to the other, and that, although included in one plea, their allowance involves all the consequences of three separate and distinct pleas. If they may set up three, then why not one hundred, upon each of which, if the complainants put in replications, there will be an issue joined, and we shall be in the midst of the complications and difficulties which a single plea was designed to prevent. The counsel for the complainants on the argument assumed that the defendants were obliged to stand upon the first ground of defense alleged, and that the two remaining grounds should be stricken out. But I think the true rule of practice in such cases was indicated by Ch. Kent in Saltus vs. Tobias, 7 John, ch., 216, where he allowed the defendant to elect which plea he would abide by. The proper order in the case is, that the pleas as filed may be set down as an answer at the option of the defendants; and, if they do not choose to do this, that ten days be given to them to elect which of the several grounds of defense they will stand on, and, when such election is made, that the other grounds be overruled. And it is ordered accordingly. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.] WILLIAM S. THOMPSON, CHARLES H. LANGDON, AND In Equity.-Before BLACHFORD, J.-Decided November, 1877. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,100, granted H. A. Lyman, October 27, 1874 (Thomson, Langdon & Co., assignees), declared to be valid, in view of the previous state of the art and of the invention exercised in producing its subject-matter. GEORGE GIFFORD and J. C. CLAYTON for complainants. STARR & RUGGLES for defendants. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This was a suit brought under reissue No. 6,100, granted to the assignees, Thomas, Langdon & Co., October 27, 1874, for "improvements in corsets." The corset is known to the trade as "Thomson's GloveFitting Corset." BLATCHFORD J.: OPINION. I think that the claim of the reissued patent, No. 6,100, covers a patentable improvement, and involved and required invention to arrive at it, in view of the state of the art; that what is embodied in such claim was not a mere change in form, proportions, and degree; and that the invention is not anticipated by any of the earlier articles produced in evidence. As the infringement is conceded, the plaintiffs are entitled to the usual decree with costs. DECREE. This cause having come on to be heard upon the bill of complaint herein, the answer thereto of all the defendants, the replication thereto of the complainants to such answer, and the proofs, oral, documentary, and written, taken and filed in said cause, and having been argued by counsel for the respective parties Now, therefore, in consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, and the court doth hereby order, adjudge, and decree, as follows, viz: That the letters patent reissue No. 6,100, granted and issued on the 27th day of October, 1874, to William S. Thomson, Charles H. Langdon, and George C. Batcheller, the complainants herein, as assignees of Henry A. Lyman, for improvements in corsets, being the let ters patent referred to in the bill of complaint herein, are good and valid in law; That the said Henry A. Lyman was the first and original inventor and discoverer of the improvements in corsets described and claimed in the said reissued letters patent No. 6,100, and the specification an. nexed thereto, and that the said William S. Thomson, Charles H. Langdon, and George C. Batcheller, the complainants herein, are now, and ever since the 27th day of October, 1874, have been, the exclusive owners of said reissued letters patent No. 6,100, and of all claims for infringing the same at any time; That the said Solomon L. Jacobs, Abraham Strouse, Rebecca Mayer, and Max Adler, the defendants herein, have infringed upon the said reissued letters patent No. 6,100, and upon the exclusive rights of the complainants under the same-that is to say, by making and selling corsets containing and embodying the invention, discovery, improvements, and combinations, substantially as set forth and claimed in the aforesaid reissued letters patent No. 6,100, in manner and form as charged in the said bill of complaint. And it is fur her ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainants do recover of the defendants the profits and gains which the said defendants have received or made, or which have arisen or accrued to them from the infringement of the said reissued letters patent No. 6,100, by the manufacture, use, and sale of corsets, as described and claimed in said reissued letters patent since the 27th day of October, 1874; and also the damages which the complainants have sustained by reason of the said infringement of said reissued letters patent No. 6,100. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that it be referred to Joseph Gutman, jr., esq., of New York City, who is hereby appointed and constituted master of this court pro hac vice, to ascertain, and take and state, and report to the court an account of the number of infringing corsets made, and also the numbers used and sold by the said defendants, and also the gains and profits which the said defendants have received, or which have accrued or arisen to said defendants from infringing the said exclusive rights of the said complainants, by the manufacture, use, or sale of the said improvements patented in the said reissued letters patent No. 6,100; and also to assess, ascertain, and state the amount of the damages which the complainants have sustained by reason of said infringements. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complain. ants on such accounting have the right to cause an examination of the said defendants, ore tenus or otherwise, and also the production of the books, vouchers, and documents of the said defendants; and that the said defendants attend before the said master, from time to time, within this district, as said master shall direct. And it is also further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that a perpetual injunction be issued in this suit against said defeudants, restraining them and their agents, clerks, servants, and workmen, and all claiming or holding under or through them, from making, using, or selling, or in any manner disposing of corsets constructed according to or embodying the invention or improvements described and claimed in the said reissued letters patent No. 6,100, pursuant to the prayer of the said bill of complaint. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainants do recover of the defendants the costs of this suit to be taxed. And it is ordered that the question of increase of damages, and all other questions, be reserved until the coming in of the master's report. [United States Circuit Court-Eastern District of Missouri.] ADAMS & WESTLAKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY vs. SAINT LOUIS WIRE GOODS COMPANY. O. G., vol. xii, p. 940. In Equity.-Before TREAT, J.-Decided September Term, 1877. The swaging of the several parts of the sieve together being an essential element of the invention set forth in plaintiff's patent, a preliminary injunction was refused, it appearing that the defendant accomplished the joining by double-seaming. Doubted whether it is a proper subject for a design patent to make sieves with a flare, so that they can be nested, one within another; and, if so, the design lacks novelty. COBURN & THACHER for plaintiff. S. S. BOYD for defendant. TREAT, J.: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The bill was based on letters patent No. 106,597, August 23, 1870, for "improvement in sieves," and on letters patent No. 4,637, February 7, 1871, for "design for sieves," granted Robert J. Mann. This opinion was stenographically reported, and afterward revised by the judge. I have received a note from counsel for plaintiff, in which they desire the result of the action of the court to be certified to them. I have not had time to write an opinion in this matter. But as this case has been presented in a hurried way, as the court was very much occupied at the time, and as it will come up hereafter on its merits, I will merely state the conclusions so far as this motion is concerned. The claim in the patent is for The combination of the loop a and sieve-cloth c, when the edge of the sieve-cloth is clasped in the hoop and there fastened by swaging, substantially as shown. Without going into an elaborate disquisition with regard to these matters, it must suffice that this patent has been twice established as a valid and subsisting patent, and for the purposes of this motion must be so treated by this court. Thereupon only one inquiry is presented: Is the sieve, as used by defendant, an infringement thereon? [Illustrating.] This is defendant's sieve separated into parts. If we go through the mechanical combination involved in their use by the defendant, and into the mechanical combination for which the plaintiff as assignee has a patent, we will find, according to the claims of the patent, the essential element is, that the sieve is placed into proper position with regard to the loops and swaged, which results in tightening the sieve below, and produces this convenient effect in the form indicated, whereby the rim remains, so that the plaintiff's sieve, thus produced, may effect results which sieves of this character are intended to produce. Now, plaintiff does not claim, and cannot claim, that the wire sieve is, simply in connection with the rim, patentable, because both of those things existed anterior to his patent. What, then, is his patent? It is that, in connection with a metallic rim, he produces a curve by swaging, which works out the results here shown. On the other hand, defendant takes the wire sieve, which is not new at all, connected with the rim, which is fastened by what is known in the mechanical arts as "double-seaming." There is nothing new in double-seaming. It is a mode known long before this patent as one for fastening not only lid-heads of cans, &c., but for a variety of other purposes. Hence, for the purposes of the present motion, it is only necessary for |