FOREIGN PATENTS-Continued.

4. SAME-SAME-TERM "PATENTED" IN SECTION 4886 CONSTRUED.-In this con-
nection the invention is patented in England, not at the date of the pro-
visional specification, but when the completed specification is filed. Id.

5. SAME-SAME-IMMATERIAL TESTIMONY.-Testimony which would show a date
of actual invention in a foreign country earlier than the date when the com-
pleted specification was filed would be immaterial in an interference.

FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS. See Foreign Patents, 1, 3, 4, 5.
FOREIGN USE. See Foreign Patents, 2; Public Use, 11, 12.

FORFEITED APPLICATIONS. See Amendments, 2.

FORFEITURE. See Abandoned Experiments, 2; Priority of Invention, 12.

FORMER DECISIONS. See Injunction, 8, 9; Trade-Marks, 7, 8.

Id.

FORMER DECISIONS AFFIRMED. See Amendments, 5; Particular Patents: 27,
Hammerschlag; 48, McCloskey; 66, Schillinger; 68, 69, Siemens; 82, White; Prior
Publication: Reissues, 16, 17.

FORMER DECISIONS CONSTRUED. See Bill in Equity, 2; Combinations, 2,
FORMER DECISIONS REVERSED. See Particular Patents: 4, Barker; 29, Harts-
· horn; 69, Siemens.

FRAUD. See Appeals to the Secretary, 1.

FUNCTION. See Combinations, 7.

GOVERNMENTAL USE. See Constitutional Protection of Inventions, 1, 2, 3; Jurisdic-
tion, 1.

GRANTING PATENTS. See Assignments, 10; Jurisdiction to Grant a Patent, 1.
HEIRS OF PATENTEE. See Title to Patent, 4.

HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Witnesses, 1.

IDENTITY OF DEVICES. See Contracts, 1; Similar Devices.

IDENTITY OF INVENTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 5; In-
fringement, 16; Interference, 14.

IDENTITY OF INVENTION IN ORIGINAL AND REISSUED PATENTS. See Con-
struction of Specifications and Patents, 7; Infringement, 19; Injunction, 2; Re-
issues, 1, 4, 7, 10, 12; 14.

IMMATERIAL VARIATIONS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 5; Inter-
ferences, 2, 14; Non-invention, 2, 3, 4; Particular Patents: 2, Backus; 27, Ham-
merschlag; Public Use, 3.

IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. See Infringement, 10.

IMPLIED CONTRACTS. See Jurisdiction, 1.

IMPROVEMENT. See Infringement, 12; Patentability, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12.
INFRINGEMENT. See Abandoment, 3; Bill in Equity; Construction of Specifications
and Patents, 2, 3, 4; Contracts, 1, 2; Damages and Profits; Injunction, 1, 3,
6, 8, 9; Liability, 1; Licenses, 1, 4; Particular Patents: 6, Bell; 16, 17, 18,
19, Doane and McKee; 27, 28, Hammerschlag; 36, Hoffheins; 39, Hutchins; 41,
Jackson; 43, Lemmon; 54, Parker; 59,60, Richards; 63, 64, Richardson; 77,
Todd; 86, Wood; Parties to Suit, 1, 2; Practice in the Courts; Reissues, 7, 11, 12;
Service of Process; State Statutes; Title to Patent.

1. PURCHASED MACHINE.-Where the defense was that the defendants' machine
was purchased of another person, who had settled with the patentee therefor,
and the proof failed to show that the defendants purchased before the date of
settlement, Held that the use by the defendants of such apparatus is an in-
fringement. Matthews v. Spangenberg et al., 123.

2. MASTER'S REPORT-PROFITS.-In this case the defendants used the combination
that gave a peculiar value to the patent faucet of the plaintiffs, and they were
chargeable with damages in respect to the entire faucet, and the master's re-
port so charging them should be confirmed. "Zane et al. v. Peck Brothers &
Co., 136.

INFRINGEMENT-Continued.

3. INFRINGED BY DOLBEAR'S INSTRUMENT-THE CONDENSER-RECEIVER DOES NOT
CHANGE THE METHOD.-The instrument of Dolbear, in which he substitutes
for Bell's receiver a condenser-receiver designed by himself, is an infringement
of the Bell patent. Whatever differences there may be in theory of the opera-
tion of the two receivers, the fact remains that Dolbear avails himself of Bell's
discovery that undulatory vibrations of electricity can intelligibly and accn-
rately transmit articulate speech, as well as of the process which Bell invented,
and that he also copies the mode and apparatus by which Bell creates and trans-
mits the undulatory electrical vibrations corresponding to those of the air. In
the plate charged with electricity, which is substituted for the magnetic coil of
Bell's receiver, the charge constantly varies in accordance with the principle
which Bell discovered and by means of the undulatory current caused by the
process and in the mode which he invented and patented. *American Bell
Telephone Company v. Dolbear et al., 160.

4. PROCESS-NOT an InfringEMENT.-Where defendants' process is not the pat-
ented process, but omits a patented step, and in its stead includes one which
the patentee intended to avoid, it is not au infringement. "Cotter v. New
Haven Copper Company et al., 176.

5. METHOD-RESULT.-In a suit for an infringement of a patent for an improve-
ment in feeding attachments of printing-machines, where the first claim was
for the method and not for the result of printing or shading illuminated cards
diagonally, and the second claim is for a combination of old and well-known
parts of a cylinder chromatic-printing press and the nippers, Held that the
patent is not infringed by defendants devising a new and useful mode of
printing those blended colors diagonally across the card, instead of printing
them in bars parallel to the sides or ends of the card, where they do not use
all complainants' combination, and where they do their work on a chromatic
press without making any substantial changes in its mechanism. "Goss et
al. v. Cameron et al., 179.

6. INFRINGEMENT.-Green's patent for driven wells is infringed by boring or dig-
ging to the sources of the water-supply when the soil is rough, or for other
reasons it is difficult to driv or press a tube into the soil, provided before a
supply of water is reached the patented process is thereafter used for the pur-
pose of obtaining an adequate flow of water upon the surface of the ground.
*Andrews et al. v. Eames, 210.

7. CONTEMPT-USE OF PART OF AN INVENTION.-The use of part of an invention
covered by a patent may coustitute an infringement, and a party so using an
invention after injunction granted adjudged guilty of contempt. Matthews
v. Spangenberg, 253.

8. Partial USE.-Infringement of a claim is not escaped by the employment in a
combination of a certain board which only effects two-thirds of a desired re-
sult, it depending altogether on the thickness and stability of the board
whether the whole operation is or is not copied. *Coupe et al. v. Weatherhead
et al., 274.

9. EXPIRATION OF PATENT-LICENSEE.-The vending of a machine after the ex-
piration of the term of a patent which was built during the term in accord-
ance with an understanding between the constructer and the patentee is not
an infringement. Reay v. Rau, 276.

10. SAME EVIDENCE.—It is not sufficient, to make out a case of an infringement,
that the defendant, called in rebuttal by the plaintiff, gave one answer, tend-
ing to establish a particular infringement which had not been the subject of
previous testimony, and which answer is inconsistent with his uniform denial
of having made the infringing device during the life of the patent without
Aka knamlades and normission of the patentee * Id

INFRINGEMENT-Continued.

11. PARTIAL USE OF COMBINATION.-A patent for a combination of several elements
is not infringed by using less than all the elements of the combination.
* Gage et al. v. Herring et al., 259.

12. IMPROVEMENTS-CHANGE OF STRUCTURE.-Where an improvement on a shoe
effects the same results in substantially the same way it is an infringement on
plaintiff's patent, although it presents great simplicity and cheapness as com-
pared to complainant's patent. "Evory et al. v. Burt et al., 295.

13. SIMILAR DEVICES-PARTIAL USE.-A patent for a hand-mirror, in which an
elastic cushion or packing is interposed between the glass and the back of the
frame to press the glass against the beveled rim of the frame, infringed by
one in which the packing, although it performs an additional office by being
located outside the periphery, extends beneath the edge of the glass suffi-
ciently to press the glass against the upper rim. *Zeun et al. v. Kaldenberg,
312.

14. INFRINGEMent-Defense-Want of NovELTY.—But in a suit for infringement
the defense of want of novelty is undoubtedly open to the defeated parties.
*Shuter et al. v. Davis et al., 330.

15. INFRINGEMENT-MACHINES EMBODYING PATENTED INVENTIONS-CHOICE OF
ACTIONS.-The sale of machines embodying the patented inventions of an-
other to one for use is an invasion of the patentee's rights, and such a con-
version of his property as will render the party so selling the invention liable
in an action for tort. But in such case the plaintiff may waive the tort and
sne in assumpsit for the money received from the sale. Steam Stone Cutter
Company v. Sheldons et al., 359.

16. INFRINGEMEent-Electro-DEPOSITION OF NICKEL-CHEMICAL EQUIVALENTS.—
Where defendant's solution is amenable to the same laws as that of the plaint-
iff, and to give the same result must be used under the same conditions and
be free from the same impurities, and be made according to the same prin-
ciples as that of the plaintiff, it is a chemical equivalent of the plaintiff's
solution. United Nickel Company v. Pendleton, 361.

*

17. SAME-SIMILAR PROCESS AND MODES OF WORKING.-Where the defendant
did not vary the process or the mode of working, or its essential conditions,
but applied a new solution, worked in the same way and under the same con-
ditions as the solution of the plaintiff, it is an infringement of plaintiff's
claim. Id.

18. INFRINGEMENT-USE OF A PARt of a Patented INVENTION INFRINGEMENT PRO
TANTO A REPUDIATED LICENSE NO DEFENSE AGAINST SUIT FOR INFRINGE-
MENT. It is not necessary to take the whole of a patented invention to con-
stitute an infringement. The patent gives exclusive enjoyment of the whole
patented invention, and taking one feature is an infringement pro tanto.
Where a defendant has repudiated a license formerly held by him, and is
acting in defiance of the patent and outside the license, such license is no
protection against suit for infringement. *Fetter et al. v. Newhall, 429.
19. INJUNCTION-Reissues-VALIDITY OF PART OF THE CLAIMS.-The claim of
the original patent being in substance reproduced in the reissue, and the in-
fringement of such claim being admitted, the patent also having been repeat-
edly sustained by the courts, a preliminary injunction will be granted, even
though other claims of the reissue may be invalid. *Duff et. al. v. Calkins, 432.
20. INFRINGEMENT.-There is no infringement where the defendant's device does not
contain a particular construction of two parts pointed out as material in the
complainants' patent, and which must be construed to be a part of his claim.
* Snow et al. v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, 482.

INFRINGEMENT IN PART. See Infringement, 7, 11, 18.

INJUNCTION. See Combinations, 3; Disclaimers, 7; Infringement, 19; Liability, 2;

Particular Patents; 7, Bell; 45, Margot; Priority of Invention, 3; Reissues, 7.

1. INFRINGEMEnt Doubtful.-Motion for a preliminary injunction denied, there
being doubt upon the question of infringement. Marks v. Corn et al., 129.
2. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.-Where there was a delay of ten years between the
original patent and the reissue, a controversy as to the validity of the re-
issue and as to the infringement, no decision of any court establishing the
validity of the patent, no royalty or license-fees paid to the patentee, no
general use or public recognition, no present manufacturing or sale of the
patented article, and no allegation of irresponsibility on the part of the
defendants, a preliminary injunction will be refused. *Tillinghast v. Hicks
et al., 174.

3. SUPPLEMENTAL BILL-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.-On supplemental bill filed
by leave of court, a preliminary injunction was granted restraining defend-
ant, pending the suit, from manufacturing or selling saw-mill dogs clearly
equivalent to plaintiff's patented device, and denied as to other dogs where
the court was in doubt upon the question of infringement. *Allis v. Stowell,
200.

4. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-ROYALTY-Effect on Defendants' BUSINESS.-
Motion for a preliminary injunction denied where the plaintiff under his
patent was making and selling the patented machines, but not using, and
the damage in effect amounted to a royalty, and where the injunction would
operate harshly upon the defendant, embarrassing his business, without cor-
responding advantage to the plaintiff. *Hoe et al., v. Boston Daily Advertiser
Corporation et al., 212.

5. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-PRIORITY OF INVENTION DETERMINED BY PATENT
OFFICE SUFFICIENT.-The decision of the Patent Office upon an interference
proceeding is sufficient to entitle the successful party, as against the defeated
party or his privies, to a preliminary injunction upon the question of priority
of invention. *Smith v. Halkyard et al., 264.

6. DISPUTED TITLE.-Where the partieslitigant justify under adverse claimants
to the same invention and the controversy remains undetermined in the
Patent Office, so much doubt is cast upon the title of the patentee that an
injunction was refused. *National Feather Duster Company v. Dearborn Duster
Company et al., 346.

7. TRADE-NAME-Protection.—The complainants, of Erie, Pa., owners of the
right to manufacture and sell the taper sleeve pulley eas of the Mississippi
River, and manufacturers of goods stamped or marked "Taper Sleeve Pulley
Works," by which their business and goods have become generally known, seek
to have the defendants, a corporation doing business at Dubuque, Iowa, and
owner of the right to manufacture and sell the taper sleeve pulley west of the
Mississippi, restrained by injunction from using the trade-name "Taper Sleeve
Pulley Works" in advertising, marking, and selling their goods. Held, that a
party has a valuable interest in the good-will of his trade, and in the labels or
trade-marks which he adopts to enlarge and perpetuate it; hence, one will
be protected in the enjoyment of his trade-name to the same extent that
trade-marks are protected, and for the like reason. *Gray et al v. Taper Sleeve
Pulley Works, 353.

8. EFFECT OF DECISIONS AS TO VALIDITY-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.-Where a
motion is made for a preliminary injunction for an alleged infringement of a
patent which has been held valid without collusion in a contested patent
case, the validity of the patent will be considered settled for the purposes of
the motion. *Coburn et al v. Clark, 386.

INJUNCTION-Continued.

9. SAME.-Where, however, the decision does not show what claims were held
valid, nor what would be an infringement, the following questions are left
open, viz: (1.) What are the contrivances covered by the patent? (2.) Has
the defendant infringed the same? *Id.

10. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION-PATENTABILITY DOUBTFUL.-A temporary injunc-
tion will not be granted where, notwithstanding the acquiescence of the
public, the defendant can show that a fair and substantial question exists
with regard to the validity of the patent. *Bradley & Hubbard Manufacturing
Company v. The Charles Parker Company, 397.

11. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-MOTION DENIED.-Motion for preliminary injune-
tion denied, the defendant having been doing for seven years what is now
complained of, and a suit at law instituted three years previous having been
allowed by the plaintiff to remain unprosecuted. United Nickel Company v.
New Home Sewing Machine Company, 407.

12. INJUNCTION-NO EQUITY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT.-Not such an equity aris-
ing in favor of the defendant out of the conduct of the plaintiff as will pre-
vent a decree for an injunction. *New York Grape Sugar Company v. Buffalo
Grape Sugar Company et al., 460.

13. SAME-DELAY-PAST PROFITS.-Mere delay in seeking relief when there is no
estoppel will not in general prevent an injunction, though it may preclude
the plaintiff from the right to an account for past profits. *Id.

14. Same-Silence, When not MISLEADING, NO ESTOPPEL.-Where the silence of
the plaintiffs, or their assignors, did beguile the defendants into a continua-
tion of business, or into renewed or large expenditures, the circumstances do
not constitute an estoppel, and an injunction will not be refused. *Id.
INOPERATIVENESS OF PATENT. See Practice in the Patent Office, 3, 7; Reissues, 19.
INSUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7;
Disclaimers, 4, 6.

INTERFERENCE. See Abandonment, 1; Appeals, 2; Applications, 2, 3; Injunction,
5; Motion to Reopen, 1, 2; Patentability, 12; Practice in the Patent Office, 5;
Priority of Invention, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14; Public Use and Sale, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7; Witnesses, 1.

1. RULES 92 AND 93 Should be LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.-The rules relating to
interferences should be liberally construed in favor of declaring an inter-
ference so that patents, as they issue, shall be restricted to the exact inven-
tions which the patentees are entitled to claim. Rules 104 and 116 afford
ample relief for any error of the office in doubtful cases. Drawbaugh v.
Blake, 17.

2. SAME-SAME INVENTION-IMMATERIAL DIFFERENCES.-The question will be
whether the two claims present substantially the same invention, disregard-
ing differences which are merely formal and non-essential, such as the mere
substitution of different materials or the employment of equivalent devices
for performing the same function; but a broad claim for an invention and a
limited claim for a specific manner of carrying the invention into effect do
not interfere. Id.

3. COMMISSIONER'S ORDER-PUBLIC USE OR SALE. -Order of the Commissioner
directing the Examiner of Interferences to fix times for taking testimony by
the respective parties as to the question of public use or sale, and further
directing that like proceedings be had before the said officer as in interference
cases. Von Hefner-Alteneck, 33.