Notes and Citations. gible statement of the principles of law which should govern the jury in making up their verdict. It said properly, that "whether one compound of given proportions is substantially the same as another compound varying in the proportions-whether they are substantially the same or substantially different-is a question of fact and for the jury." Under this instruction the jury found a verdict for the defendants, with which the parties must be content. If the jury (b) have erred, the remedy is not in this court. Judgment affirmed. 7 Wall. 330-331. Notes: 1. Composition of matter. Wood v. Underhill, 5 How. 1 [4 Am. & Eng. 551]. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 [5 Am. & Eng. 240]. Cochrane v. Anilin Fabrik, 111 U. S. 239. Product. Wood Paper Patents, 23 Wall. 566. Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126. 2. Sufficiency of description of a composition of matter. Wood v. Underhill, 5 How. 1 [4 Am. & Eng. 551]. (b) Wallace adds "in finding for the defendants.” 3. Chemical equivalents. Notes and Citations. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U. S. 222. 4. Identity, when a question for jury. Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. 356 [4 Am. & Eng. 105]. Patent in suit: No. 38,015. Tyler, C. N. March 24, 1863. Burning Fluid. Cited: IN CIRCUIT COURTS IN: Lockwood v. Faber, February, 1886. 27 Fed. Rep. 63. IN TEXT-BOOKS: 2 Abb. Pat. Law, 1886, p. 239. Curtis on Pats., 4th ed., § 261 a. Merwin on Pat. Inv't. 1883, pp. 65, 241. Walker on Pats., 1883, pp. 78, 124, 268, 355. Syllabus. LEWIS MOORE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. JAMES MARSH, P. BEAVER, CHARLES C. SHORKLEY AND ELISHA SHORKLEY*. 7 Wall., 515-523. Dec. Term, 1868. [Bk. 19, L. ed. 37; 2 Whit. 180.] Argued December 14, 1868. Decided January 4, 1869. "Persons interested." Act 1836, sec. 14. Right of action for damages subsequent to sale of exclusive right. 1. Where, subsequent to the alleged infringement, but before the commencement of his suit, plaintiff, the original owner of the patent, assigned to a third party an undivided half of his interest, held in view of Act 1836, sec. 14, that he was a "perinterested" competent to sue to recover the son damages for such infringement. (p. 16.) 2. The word "interested," Act 1836, sec. 14, construed to mean that the right of action is given to the person or persons owning the exclusive right at the time the infringement is committed. (p. 20.) 3. Subsequent sale and transfer of the exclusive right in a patent are no bar to an action to recover damages for an infringement committed before such sale and transfer. [Citations in opinion of the court:] (p. 20.) Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477 [5 Am. & Eng. 188]. p. 19. Curtis Pat. 3d. ed. sec. 347. p. 19. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall, 429. p. 19. Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How. 712 [4 Am. & Eng. 542]. p. 19. Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch. 324 [4 Am. & Eng. 1]. p. 19. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatch, 206, 238. p. 19. Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198. [6 Am. & Eng. 361]. p. 21. Kilborn v. Rewee, 8 Gray, 415. p. 21. 1 Hilliard, on T. 521. p. 21. Eades v. Harris, 1 Younge & Collier, 230. p. 21. *See Explanation of Notes, page III. Argument of counsel. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This action was brought in the court below by the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for infringement of a certain patent. Issue having been joined by a demurrer to the defendant's plea and judgment thereon given for defendants, the plaintiff sued out this writ of error. A further statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court. Mr. Samuel S. Fisher, for plaintiff in error. Joint patentees or assignees of a patent are tenants in common. Pitts v. Hall, 3 Blatchf. 201; Vose v. Singer, 4 Allen, 226; Mathers v. Green, 1 Ch. App. Cas. 29. Tenants in common cannot join to recover damages for injury to an estate which, at the time of the injury was the sole property of one of them. 1 Chit. Pl. 64. In the Act of July 4, 1836, sec. 14, the words "name of the person interested," do not mean persons interested in the patent at the time of bringing the suit; but persons interested in the patent at the time when the cause of action accrued. See Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198 [6 Am. & Eng. 361]. An assignment of a patent or of an interest therein does not carry with it a right to unliquidated damages, previously accrued for the infringement thereof. Messrs. H. Baldwin, Jr., and W. Bakewell, for defendants. That the words "the person or persons interested, whether as patentees, assignees or grantees of the exclusive right within and throughout a specified part of the United States," in the 14th section, which specifies in whose name the suit should be brought, mean interested in the patent, and not interested in the damages is manifest: 1. By comparing this with the 11th section Act July 4, 1836. |