4 501 200 PATENTS BY CHARLES HOLLAND DUELL* I. NATURE OF PATENTS, 815 A. In General, 815 1. Grant, 815 2. No Common -Law Right, 815 3. Consideration For Grant, 816 4. Creation of Statute, 816 5. Contract, 816 G. Monopoly, 816 B. Eights of Patentees, 817 1. Nature of Eight, 817 2. Territory Covered by Eight, 817 3. Need Not Use Invention or License Others to Use, 817 4. Eight of Government to Use Invention, 818 5. Government Cannot Cancel Patent, 818 C. Patents as Property, 819 1. Personal Property, 819 2. Location, 819 3. /2W Reached by the Courts, 819 D. Constitutional Authority For Patents, 819 1. /ft, General, 819 2. Grant to Inventors Not to Importers, 820 3. Patents Granted by State, 820 n. SUBJECTS OF PATENTS, 820 A. Patentable Subject -Matter, 820 1. In General, 820 2. Statutory Classes of Invention, 820 3. Physical Things Only Are Patentable, 820 4. Result of Principle J^ot Patentable, 821 5. Means Are Patentable, 822 B. Art, 822 1. 7 General, 822 2. Must Produce Physical Eesult, 824 3. Function Not Patentable, 824 4. Independent of Apparatus, 824 5. Chemical or Elemental Action, 825 6. Mechanical Processes, 825 7. J&iowledge of Principles Involved Unnecessary, 825 C. Machines, 825 D. Manufacture, 825 E. Composition of Matter, 826 F. Improvement, 826 1. /n General, 826 2. Superiority Unnecessary, 826 G. Designs, 827 1. /ft General, 827 2. Term. 828 * Formerly United States Commissioner of Patents ; and sometime Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The author acknowledges valuable assistance from John M. Coit, Esq., of the Washington City Bar. Mr. Coit was for many years Law Clerk of the Pateut4)i^(*sadrfeMtor Examiner-in-Chief. COPYRIGHT, 1 90 THE AMERiCAN LAW BOOK CO., 804 [30 Cy c.] 'PA TENTS III. PATENTABILITY, 828 A. In General, 828 B. Novelty, 828 1. In General, 828 2. Prior Knowledge in This Country, 829 3. Extent of Prior Knowledge, 829 4. Date of Knowledge, 829 5. Prior Knowledge or Use Abroad, 829 6. Publication or Patent Abroad, 830 7. Novelty of Means, 830 8. Novelty of Function or Result, 830 9. Novelty of Form, 831 10. Novelty ^n Combination, 831 C. Anticipation, 832 1. In General, 832 a. Introductory Statement, 832 b. Full Disclosure Necessary, 832 c. Identity, 832 d. General Knowledge of Public Unnecessary, 834 e. Patentee's Knowledge of Anticipation Unnecessary ', 835 2. P-ra>r Patents, 835 a. /ft General, 835 b. Foreign Patents^ 835 c. Paper Patents, 836 d. Secret Patents, 836 e. Sufficiency of Description, 836 f. Failure to Claim Immaterial, 837 3. Prior Publication, 837 a. 7?i General, 837 b. Sufficiency of Publication, 837 c. Sufficiency of Description, 838 4. Prior Knowledge and 'Use, 838 a. Sufficiency of Knowledge, 838 b. Mental Idea Insufficient, 838 c. Necessity For Perfected Invention, 838 d. Necessity For Demonstration of Success, 839 e. Abandoned or Unsuccessful Experiments, 839 f . Models and Unpublished Drawings, 840 g. Accidental Production of Invention, 840 h. Z0*2 ^Irtf, 841 i. Combination of Old Elements, 841 j. Non- Analogous Use, 842 K. Evidence, 842 (i) Presumptions and Iturden of Proof, 842 (n) Admissibility, 842 (A) //i General, 842 (B) Application For Patent, 843 (in) Weight and Sufficiency, 844 D. Utility, 845 1. /^ General, 845 2. Evidence of Utility, 846 E. Invention, 847 1 . Necessity, 847 2. Nature, 847 3. Invention and Discovery Synonymous, 848 4. Prior Art Considered, 848 5. Novelty and Superiority Not Invention, 848 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 805 6. Simplicity Does Not Negative, 849 7. Complexity Not Proof of Inven tion, 849 8. Mechanical Skill, 849 9. Superior Finish or Form Not Invention, 850 10. Difference in Degree Not Patentable, 851 11. Duplication of Parts, 852 12. Double Use, 852 13. New and Non -Analogous Use, 854 Itt. Substitution of Equivalents, 855 a. In General, 855 b. Superiority of Substituted Part No Test, 856 15. Substitution of Material, 856 16. Change of Location of Parts, 857 1 7. Omission of Parts, 857 18. Making Parts Integral or Separate, 858 19. Making Device Portable, 858 20. Combination, 858 a. _/? General, 858 b. Zafe #/" Application, 864 6. Renewal or Substitute Application, 864 7. Divisional Applications, 865 8. Prior Public Use or Sale, 865 a. .4s 13 ar to Patent, 865 b. Nature of Use Sufficient to Bar Patent, 866 (i) In General, 866 (u) Single Instance Sufficient, 866 (in) Knowledge or Consent of the Inventor, 866 (iv) Invention Must Be Complete, 867 (v) Experimental Use, 867 (vi) Secret Use, 867 (vn) Natural and Intended Use, 867 (vm) Use For Profit, 867 (ix) Use in a Foreign Country, 868 c. Oi Sale, 868 (i) In General, 868 (n) Single Sale Sufficient, 868 (in) Offer For Sale, 868 (iv) Sale For Experiment, 868 (v) Conditional Sale. 869 (vi) Perfected Invention, 869 (vn) Burden of Proof , 869 G. Abandonment of In mention, 869 806 [SOCye.] PATENTS 1. In General, 869 2. Question of Intent, 870 3. Express Abandonment , 870 4r. Abandonment by Conduct, 870 5. Necessity of Disclosure to Public, 871 6. Abandoned Experiments, 871 7. Failure to Claim in Patent, 871 8. Abandonment of Application, 871 9. Evidence of Abandonment, 872 IV. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS, 872 A. Original and First Inventor, 872 1. In General, 872 2. JFYrotf Inventor, 873 3. Originality of Invention, 873 4. Cit^2enship of Inventor, 874 5. deduction to Practice, 874 a. 7/i General, 874 b. Constructive Reduction to Practice, 875 6. Diligence, 876 7. Models, Drawings, and Description, 877 8. Assistance by Others, 877 9. Invention Made Abroad, 878 10. Evidence as to Originality and Priority, 878 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, 878 b. Admissibility and Sufficiency, 878 B. Joint Inventors, 879 1. In General, 879 2. Joinder and Grant, 879 C. Employer and Employee, 880 1. /ft General, 880 2. Perfection of Employees Ideas, 881 3. Presumptions as to Inventorship, 881 D. Government Employees, 881 E. Assignees, 882 F. Personal Representatives, 882 G. Heirs, 882 II. Guardian of Insane Person, 882 V. APPLICATION AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON, 882 A. /^ General, 882 B. Requisites of Application, 882 1. /ft General, 882 2. Specification or Description, 883 a. /ft General, 883 b. Matters of Common Knowledge, 884 c. Z7s6# 0/* Invention, 884 d. Philosophical Principles, 885 e. Improvements, 885 f . Concealment and Deception, 885 3. Claims, 886 a. /ft General, 886 b. Vague, Indefinite, and Inaccurate Claims, 886 c. Must State Means, Not Function or Result, 886 d. Breadth of Claim, 886 e. Alternative Claims, 887 f. Multiplicity of Claims, 887 4. Drawings, 887 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 807 5. Oath, 888 a. Necessity, 888 b. By and Before Whom Made, 888 c. Absence of Written Oath, 888 6. Fees, 889 7. Subject -Matter or Scope, 889 C. Examination and Proceedings in Patent Office, 889 1. In General, 889 2. Rejection, 890 3. Evidence at Hearing, 890 4. Amendment, 891 a. //& General, 891 b. Jfoai Matter, 891 c. Delay in Amending, 891 d. O^A, 892 5. Allowance, 892 6. forfeiture and Renewal, 892 7. Abandonment, 892 8. Interference* 892 a. 7?i General, 892 b. Between Applicants and Patentees, 893 c. Evidence, 894 (i) J3urden of Proof, 894 (n) Admissibility and Weight and Sufficiency, 895 d. Pleadings, 895 e. Second Interference, 896 9. Appeal, 896 a. 7?i General, 896 b. TFA0 Entitled to Appeal, 896 c. Formalities and Proceedings, 897 d. Appealable Decisions, 897 e. Review, 898 f . 7Ym0 Tfyr Appeal, 899 10. Caveats, 899 a. 7/i General, 899 b. Tfy TFAora 7^7^v. (1) / ;i General, WZZ (2) Requisites and Sufficiency, 1034 (3) Jgfe^ . Liverpool United Gas Light Co., 9 Jur. N. S. 140, 32 L. J. Ch. 28, 7 L. T. Rep. N. .S. 537; Crane v. Price, 12 L. J. C. P. 81, 4 M. & G. 580, 5 Scott N. R. 338, 43 E. C. L. 301; Otto v. Linford, 46 L. T. Rep. N. S. 35; Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95, 3 Rev. Rep. 439. 67. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 788, 24 L. ed. 139. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 823 ID patent law the term lias a different and more restricted meaning than it has in ordinary usage. 68 It has reference to the steps followed or successive acts per- formed in producing some desired physical effect. 69 It must produce some article or substance or change the physical condition of some article or substance; 70 but Other definitions or descriptions. " [A term] used as it is in the statute in the sense of the employment of means to a desired end, or the adaptation of powers in the natural world to the uses of life." Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 175, Holmes 20. "A mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject- matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Appleton Mfg. Co. v. Star Mfg. Co., GO Fed. 411, 413, 9 C. C. A., 42. A result or effect produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another; in another and more vague sense it represents the function of a machine, or the effect produced by it on the material subjected to the action of the ma- chine. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 267, 14 L. ed. 683. " The application or operation of some element or power of nature, or of one subject to another." Boyd v. Cherry, 50 Fed. 279, 282. A " new process " is usually the result of a discovery, as distinguished from " ma- chine " which is an invention. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 267, 14 L. ed. 683. " Patentable process." A process combin- ing instrumentalities before known, but not employed together to accomplish a new and useful result. Andrews v. Carman, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 371, 13 Blatchf. 307. " Process " or " methods " are terms which when used to represent the means of pro- ducing a beneficial result are in law synony- mous with " art," provided the means are not effected by mechanism or mechanical combinations. Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20 68. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683. 69. In re Weston, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 431; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899; Royer v. Coupe, 146 U. S. 524, 13 S. Ct. 166, 36 L. ed. 1073; International Tooth-Crown Co. f. Gaylord, 140 U. S. 55, 11 S. Ct. 716, 35 L. ed. 347; Lawther i\ Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 L. ed. 325; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 122 U., S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 40 L. ed. 1103; Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466, 27 L. ed. 789; Cochrane a. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; American Wood Paper Co. t?. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566, 23 L. ed. 31; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860; American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 C. C. A. 662; Wall v. Leek, 66 Fed. 552, 13 C. C. A. 630; Boyd v. Cheriy, 50 Fed. 279. 70. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139. And see supra, II, A, 3. A process, all the steps of which are old, may be new and patentable when, cooperat- ing with each other, they produce a result that is new and useful. G-erman American Filter Co. v. Erdrich, 98 Fed. 300. Reversal of mode of operation may be pat- entable. Thus a process for pasteurizing beer in bottles by moving the bottles through heated water which is stationary is not an- ticipated by a patent for a process involving the moving of heated water around station- ary bottles containing the liquor to be pas- teurized. In re Wagner, 22 App. Gas., (D. C.) 267. Process of rolling metal forgings is pat- entable. Simonds Rolling-Mach. Co. v. Ha- thorn Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 201. Copperplate printing patentable. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. 9. Transmitting speech by electricity is pat- entable. Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863. Artificial honey is patentable. In re Cor- bin, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,224, McArthur Pat. Cas. 521. Other patentable processes. New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 122 U. S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 30 L. ed. 1103; Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466, 3 S. Ct. 10, 27 L. ed. 789; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; American Wood Paper Co. v. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566, 23 L. ed. 131; Mitchell v. Tilghman, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 287, 22 L. ed. 125; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 858; Providence Rubber Co. . v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin Fibre Co., 72 Fed., 508, 18 C. C. A. 662; Travers v. American Cordage Co., 64 Fed. 771; Uhl- man V. Arnholdt, etc., Brewing Co., 53 Fed. 485; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Water- bury, 39 Fed, 389; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. V. Standard Paper-Bag Co., 30 Fed. 63; Buchanan v. Rowland, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,074, 5 Blatchf. 151, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 341; Car- negie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 99 Off. Gaz. 1866; John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 97 Off. Gaz. 2308; Thomas v. Electric Porcelain, etc., Co., 97 Off. Gaz. 1838; Welsbach Light Co. v. Union Incan- descent Light Co., 91 Off. Gaz. 2574; West- ern Mineral Wool, etc., Co. v. Globe Mineral Wool Co., 77 Off. Gaz. 1127; Imperial Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Stein, 75 Off. Gaz. 1551; Covert v. Travers Bros. Co., 75 Off. [II, B, 1] 824 [30 Cye.] PATENTS it is not necessary that the thing produced shall be new, since a new process for accomplishing an old result is patentable. 71 2. MUST PRODUCE PHYSICAL RESULT. It must be a method of effecting a physical result and not a mere plan or theory of conduct. 72 The physical result, however, need not be a permanent condition of the article or substance acted upon, but may be temporary, as in the case of transmitting speech by certain regulated undulations of the electric current in the telephone. 73 3. FUNCTION NOT PATENTABLE. The mere function of a machine is not a pat- entable process, although a patentable process may be performed by machinery. 74 4. INDEPENDENT OF APPARATUS. A patentable process is separate from and independent of any machine or apparatus used in performing it. 75 A process may be patentable irrespective of the particular form of the instrumentalities used. 76 It may be said in general that processes of manufacture which involve chemical or other similar elemental action are patentable, although mechanism may be necessary to the application or carrying out of such a process, while those which consist solely in the operation of a machine are not. 77 " Most processes which have been held to be patentable require the aid of mechanism in their Gaz. 349; Tannage Patent Co. v. Zahn, 74 Off. Gaz. 143; Hoke v. Brown, Dec. Com. Pat. (1889) 470; Neilson v. Harford, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. 295. The following processes have been held not to be patentable: An improvement in sew- ing machines, by which the soles and uppers of boots and shoes could be sewed together without any welt by a certain kind of stitches (MacKay v. Jackman, 12 Fad. 615, 20 Blatchf. 466) ; a process of washing shavings in brew- eries (Brainard v. Cramme, 12 Fed. 621, 20 Blatchf. 530) ; an improved method of treat- ing seed by steam (Gage v. Kellogg, 23 Fed. 891) ; a process for crimping heel-stiffenings of boots and shoes (Hatch v. Moffitt, 15 Fed. 252). 71. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Providence Rubber Co. v. Good- year, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566. Ar- ticle may be new and process old. American Wood Paper Co. v. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 560, 23 L. ed. 31. 72. Manhattan Gen. Constr. Co. v. Helios- Upton Co., 135 Fed. 785; U. S. Credit System Co. v. American Credit Indemnity Co., 53 Fed. 818; Ex p. Dixon, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,927; Smith v. Downing, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,036, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64. And see supra, II, A, 3 : III, B, 1. 73. Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863. 74. In re Cunningham, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 29; In re Weston, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 431, 94 Off. Gaz. 1786; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. ed. 1136; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288, 24 L. ed. 103; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 600, 661; Corning v. Bur- den, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co., 131 Fed. 740; National Hollow Brako Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co., 99 Fed. 758; American Strawboard Co. v. Elkhart Egg-Case Co., 84 Fed. 960; Gin- dorff v. Deering, 81 Fed. 952; Chicopee Fold- [II, B, 1] ing-Box Co. v. Rogers, 32 Fed. 695 ; Excelsior Needle Co. v. Union Needle Co., 32 Fad. 221, 23 Blatchf. 147; Gage v. Kellogg, 23 Fed. 891; Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 20 Fed. 633, 22 Blatchf. 169; Hatch -v. Moffitt, 15 Fed. 252; Goss 17. Cameron, 14 Fed. 570, 11 Biss. 389; Brainard v. Cramme, 12 Fed. 621, 20 Blatchf. 530; MacKay v. Jackman, 12 Fed. 615, 20 Blatchf. 466; Matthews v. Shoneber- ger, 4 Fed. 635, 18 Blatchf. 357; Sickels v. Falls Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,834, 4 Blatchf. 508, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 202; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 99 Off. Gaz. 1866; Busch v. Jones, 99 Off. Gaz. 229; New v. Warren, 22 Off. Gaz. 587. And see infra, II, B, 7. 75. In re Weston, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 431; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed. 786; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; Providence Rubber Co. u. Good- year, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; Gindorff v. Deering, 81 Fed. 952; Wells Glass Co. v. Henderson, 67 Fed. 930, 15 C. C. A. 84; Burr V. Cowperthwait, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,188, 4 Blatchf. 163; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200] ; In re Creveling, 117 Off. Gaz. 1167; U. S. Repair, etc., Co. v. Assyrian Asphalt Co., 98 Off. Gaz. 582; Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Gibson, 56 Off. Gaz. 1566. 76. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 787, 24 L. ed. 139, in which it was said: " If one of the steps of a process be that a certain substance is to be reduced to a powder, it may not be at all material what instru- ment or machinery is used to effect that ob- ject, whether a hammer, a pestle and mortar, or a mill." 77. Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899; PATENTS [30 Cye.] 825 practical application, but where such mechanism is subsidiary to the chemical action, the fact that the patentee may be entitled to a patent upon his mechanism does not impair his right to a patent for the process ; since he would lose the benefit of his real discovery, which might be applied in a dozen different ways, if he were not entitled to such patent.'' 78 5. CHEMICAL OR ELEMENTAL ACTION. Arts or processes within the meaning of the term in patent law have been defined as those in which chemical or elemental action is called into play and such processes have always been regarded as patentable. 79 6. MECHANICAL PROCESSES. It would seem, however, that mechanical processes involving simple 'manipulation may be patentable, even where there is no chemical or elemental action. 80 The mere fact that the use of machinery may be necessary in carrying out the process does not render it unpatentable. 81 7. KNOWLEDGE OF PRINCPLES INVOLVED UNNECESSARY. An art may be patentable, although the inventor himself does not know the philosophical or abstract principles involved in the practice of the art. 82 He must, however, know and describe the steps by which the result is accomplished so that those skilled in the art may practice the invention. 83 C. Machines. A machine is a combination of mechanical elements adapted to perform a mechanical function. 84 It includes movable parts and differs from an article or implement in that it has a rule of action of its own. It differs from a process, in that a new process is usually the result of discovery, and a machine of invention. 85 D. Manufacture. An article of manufacture is any article or implement produced by human agency and adapted to perform a mechanical function but having no rule of action of its own. 86 78. Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 72, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899. 79. In re Western, 17 App. Gas. (D. C.) 431; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 122 U. S. 413, 7 S. Ct. 1304, 30 L. ed. 1103; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860; American Fibre- Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 C. C. A. 662; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200]. Process and apparatus. A process and an apparatus, while presumptively independent inventions when considered in the light of U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886 [amended by U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382), providing that inventions or discoveries may be either arts, machines, or composition of matter, nevertheless may be so connected in their de- sign and operation as to constitute unitary invention. In re Frasch, 27 App. Cas. ( D. C. ) 25. 80. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968; Melvin v. Potter, 91 Fed. 151; Travers V. American Cordage Co., 64 Fed. 771; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury, 39 Fed. 389; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v. Standard Paper-Bag Co., 30 Fed. 63; Detroit Lubri- cator Mfg. Co. v. Renchard. 9 Fed. 293; Wilton v. Railroad Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,856. But see Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899 ; Stokes Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Heller, 96 Fed. 104; American Strawboard Co. v. Elkhart Egg-Case Co., 84 Fed. 960; Wells Glass Co. v. Henderson, 67 Fed. 930, 15 C. C. A. 84. 81. In re Weston, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 431; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968. See supra, II, B, 4. 82. Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20 [re- versed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200] ; Wilton v. Railroad Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,856. And see infra, V, B, 2. 83. See infra, V, B, 2, a. 84. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683. A word which is said to include every mechanical device or combina- tion of mechanical powers and devices to per- form some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; Appleton Mfg. Co. v. Star Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 411, 9 C. C. A. 42; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20. New combinations as well as new organiza- tions of mechanism are included in the term. Wintermute i?. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,896, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239. 85. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683. 86. Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,718, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 730, 4 McLean 456. As used in the patent law, it is a word of very comprehensive meaning, and embraces whatever is made by the art or in- dustry of man, not being a machine, a com- pi, D] 826 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS E. Composition of Matter. A composition of matter is a mechanical mix- ture or chemical combination of two or more substances, 87 and may be patentable. 88 The test of patentability is the same as in machines. 89 F. Improvement 1. IN GENERAL. An improvement is an addition to, or change in, a known art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter which produces a useful result, 90 and is patentable 91 if it amounts to invention. 92 The improvement may be upon the patentee's own invention. 93 2. SUPERIORITY UNNECESSARY. In the sense of the patent law it is not necessary that the improved article be superior to the original in all respects. 94 It is suf- ficient that the thing including the improvement is useful and possesses some advantage over the original for some purposes. 95 The advantage may reside in position of matter, or a design. Johnson v. Johnston, 60 Fed. 618. Any tool or implement used by hand is patentable. Coupe v. Weatherhead, 16 Fed. 673. A book having a novel construction is a patentable article, and the relative arrange- ment of printed matter and blank spaces may be considered an element of structure. Thomson v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 250, 3 C. C. A. 518; Munson v. New York, 3 Fed. 338, 5 Ban. & A. 486, 18 Blatchf. 237 [.re- versed in 124 U. S. 601, 8 S. Ct. 622, 31 L. ed. 586]; Hawes v. Antisdel, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,234, 2 Ban. & A. 10, 8 Off. Gaz. 685; Hawes v. Cook, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,236, 5 Off. Gaz. 493; Hawes v. Washburne, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,242, 5 Off. Gaz. 491. A teaching chart with skitted leaves is patentable. In re Snyder, 10 App. Gas. (D. C.) 140. 87. Holliday v. Schulze-Berge, 78 Fed. 493 ; Rogers v. Ennis, 20 Fed. Gas. No. 12,010, 3 Ban. & A. 366, 15 Blatchf. 47, 14 Off. Gaz. 601 ; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Gas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92. New proportions of old ingredients patent- able. Francis v. Mellor, 9 Fed. Gas. No. 5,039, 5 Fish. Pat. Gas. 153, 1 Off. Gaz. 48, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 157; Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Gas. No. 13,368a; Woodward v. Morrison, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 18,008, 5 Fish. Pat. Gas. 357, Holmes 124, 2 Off. Gaz. 120. New way or new form. A composition is not patentable because made in a new way (In re Maule, 16 Fed. Gas. No. 9,308, McAr- thur Pat. Cas. 271) ; or in a new form (Rum- ford Chemical Works v. New York Baking Powder Co., 125 Fed. 231). Although process is old the product may be new. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik r. Kalle, 94 Fed. 163. A substance in nature is not patentable be- cause new means are devised for obtaining it (American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Disin- tegrating Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 320, 6 Blatchf. 27, 3 Fish. Pat, Cas. 362 [affirmed in 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566, 23 L. ed. 31]; when separated from other materials with which it is found combined (American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., supra) . In England a composition first made com- mercially is patentable, although it was known as a chemical curiosity. Frearson v. Loe, 9 Ch. D. 48, 27 Wkly. Rep. 183; Lewis [II, E] v. Davis, 3 C. & P. 502, 14 E. C. L. 685; Electric Tel. Co. v. Brett, 10 C. B. 838, 15 Jur. 579, 20 L. J. C. P. 123, 70 E. C. L. 838 ; Nickels v. Ross, 8 C. B. 679, 65 E. C. L. 679; Young v. Fernie, 4 Giffard 577, 10 Jur. N. S. 926, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861, 12 Wkly. Rep. 901, 66 Eng. Reprint 836; Crane v. Price, 12 L. J. C. P. 81, 4 M. & G. 580, 5 Scott N. R. 338, 43 E. C. L. 301 ; Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95, 3 Rev. Rep. 439. 88. Cochrane v. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 S. Ct. 455, 28 L. ed. 433; Smith v. Goodyear Dantal Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 *L. ed. 952. 89. Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Celluloid Co., 97 Fed. 91, 38 C. C. A. 60; Antisdel v. Chicago Hotel Cabinet Co., 89 Fed. 308, 32 C. C. A. 216. Lack of identity is shown by results. Matheson v. Campbell, 77 Fed. 280. 90. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 130 Fed. 542; Thom- son-Houston Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Co., 101 Fed. 587; Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno Home-Packing Co., 94 Fed. 845; Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 285; Bray v. Hartshorn, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,820, 1 Cliff. 538 ; Page v. Ferry, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,662, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298. A change in an old machine may consist alone of a new and useful combination of the several parts of which it is composed, or it may consist of a material alteration or modification of one or more of the several devices which enter into its construction, or it may consist in adding new devices. Bray v. Hartshorn, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,820, 1 Cliff. 538. 91. Phillips v. Page, 24 How. (U. S.) 164, 16 L. ed. 639; Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 285; Coupe v. Weatherhead, 16 Fed. 673; Bray v. Hartshorn, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,820, 1 Cliff. 538; Losh v. Hague, Web. Pat. Cas. 200. 92. Pelzer v. Dale Co., 106 Fed. 989, 46 C. C. A. 83. 93. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Grimes v. Allen, 102 Fed. 606, 42 C. C. A. 559. 94. Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609. And see infra, III, D. 95. Detroit Lubricator Mfg. Co. v. Rench- ard, 9 Fed. 203; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197. PA TENTS [30 Cye.] 827 the ease or cheapness of manufacture or it may reside in the functions performed by it. 96 G. Designs 1. IN GENERAL. A patentable design may consist of a new and ornamental shape given to an article of manufacture or of an ornamentation to be placed upon an article of old shape. 97 The design law was intended to encourage the decorative arts, and therefore deals with the appearance rather than the structure, uses, or functions of the article. 98 The design must be novel and must have called for an exercise of the inventive faculties as distinguished from ordi- nary skill. 99 The patentability of a design does not depend on its aesthetic value. 96. Jones v. Wetherill, 13 Fed. Gas. No. 7,508, McArthur Pat. Gas. 409. 97. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4929 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3398]. Combination of old elements producing new appearance is patentable. Matthews, etc., Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp, etc., Co., 103 Fed. 634; Untermeyer r. Freund, 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183. For designs held patentable see Caldwell v. Powell, 73 Fed. 488, 19 C. C. A. 592 [revers- ing 71 Fed. 970]; Stewart v. Smith, 58 Fed. 580, 7 C. C. A. 380; Smith v. Stewart, 55 Fed. 481; New York Belting, etc., Co. v. New Jersey Car-Spring, etc., Co., 48 Fed. 556 Ire versed on other grounds in 53 Fed. 810, 4 C. C. A. 21] ; Anderson v. Saint, 46 Fed. 760; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Adkins, 44 Fed. 280 ; Fos- ter v. Crossin, 44 Fed. 62 ; Simpson v. Davis, 12 Fed. 144, 20 Blatchf. 413; Miller v. Smith, 15 Fed. 359. For unpatentable subject-matter see Nied- ringhaus v. Commissioner of Patents, 2 Mac- Arthur (D. C.) 149; Howe v. Blodgett, etc., Co., 112 Fed. 61, 50 C. C. A. 120; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Holland, 62 Fed. 465 [affirmed in 79 Fed. 993, 25 C. C. A. 676]; Foster v. Crossin, 44 Fed. 62; Post v. T. C. Richards Hardware Co., 26 Fed. 618 [affirmed in 131 U. S. 444, 9 S. Ct. 802, 33 L. ed. 218] ; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis Wire-Goods Co., 1 Fed. Gas. No. 72, 3 Ban. & A. 77. Movable parts. Design may include mov- able parts. Chandler Adjustable Chair, etc., Co. v. Hey wood Bros., etc., Co., 91 Fed. 163. Uniting old forms and parts. Whatever in- genuity is displayed in producing a new de- sign which imparts to the eye a pleasing im- pression, even though it be the result of uniting old forms and parts, such production is patentable. General Gaslight Co. v. Match- less Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 137. In England designs are copyrighted and not patented. St. 5 & 6 Viet. c. 100; Holds- worth v. McCrea, L. R. 2 H. L. 380, 36 L. J. Q. B. 297, 14 Wkly. Rep. 226; Windover v. Smith, 32 Beav. 200, 9 Jur. N. S. 397, 32 L. J. Ch. 561, 7 L..T. Rep. N. S. 776, 1 New Rep. 349, 11 Wkly. Rep. 323, 55 Eng. Reprint 78; Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Hall & T. 437, 47 Eng. Reprint 1754, 14 Jur. 945, 20 L. J. Ch. 475, 2 Macn. & G. 231, 48 Eng. Ch. 178, 42 . Eng. Reprint 89; Pierce v. Worth, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 710. 98. In re Tournier, 17 App. Gas. (D. C.) 481; Miller -v. Young, 33 111. 354; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 20 L. ed. 731; West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank, 146 Fed. 388 [affirmed in 149 Fed. 423, 79 C. C. A. 359]; Bradley v. Eccles, 126 Fed. 945, 61 C. C. A. 669; Eaton v. Lewis, 115 Fed. 635 [affirmed in 127 Fed. 1018, 61 C. C. A. 562] ; Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Starr Bros. Bell Co., 114 Fed. 362; Rowe v. Blodg- ett, etc., Co., 103 Fed. 873 [affirmed in 112 Fed. 61, 50 C. C. A. 120] ; Pelouze Scale, etc., Co. v. American Cutlery Co., 102 Fed. 916, 43 C. C. A. 52; Braddock Glass Co. v. Macbeth, 64 Fed. 118, 12 C. C. A. 70; Redway v. Ohio Stove Co., 38 Fed. 582 ; Untermeyer v. Freund, 37 Fed. 342; Wood v. Dolby, 7 Fed. 475, 19 Blatchf. 214; Northrup v. Adams, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,328, 2 Ban. & A. 567, 12 Off. Gaz. 430; Perry v. Starrett, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,012, 3 Ban. & A. 485, 14 Off. Gaz. 599. 99. In re Freeman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 226 ; Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. ed. 606; General Gaslight Co. v. Matchless Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 137 ; Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Starr Bros. Bell Co., 114 Fed. 362; Cary Mfg. Co. v. Neal, 98 Fed. 617, 39 C. C. A. 189; Soehner v. Favor- ite Stove, etc., Co., 84 Fed. 182, 28 C. C. A. 317; Hammond v. Stockton Combined Har- vester, etc., Works, 70 Fed. 716, 17 C. C. A. 356; Krick v. Jansen, 61 Fed. 847, 10 C. C. A. 114; Paine v. Snowden, 46 Fed. 189; Pratt v. Rosenfeld, 3 Fed. 335, 18 Blatchf. 234; Col- lender v. Griffith, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,000, 11 Blatchf. 212, 3 Off. Gaz. 689; Northrup v. Adams, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,328, 2 Ban. & A. 567, 12 Off. Gaz. 430. As much invention is required as in me- chanical patent. Design patents stand on as high a plane as utility patents and require as high a degree of exercise of the inventive or original faculty. Perry v. Hoskins, 111 Fed. 1002; Myers v. Sternheim, 97 Fed. 625, 38 C. C. A. 345 ; Western Electric Mfg. Co. v. Odell, 18 Fed. 321. Double use of the same thing for different purposes is not invention. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. ed. 606; Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183; Cahoone Barnet Mfg. Co. v. Rubber, etc., Harness Co., 45 Fed. 582; New York Belting, etc., Co. v. New Jer- sey Car-Spring, etc., Co., 30 Fed. 785. Identity of designs. Designs are the same when an ordinary observer giving ordinary attention would mistake one for the other. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. ed. 606 ; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 20 L. ed. 731 ; Jennings v. Kibbe, 10 Fed. 669, 20 Blatchf. [II, G, 1] 828 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS The design act, as construed by the courts, intends that the patentability of a design shall be determined by its appeal to the eyes of the ordinary man, and not to the eyes of a jury of artists. 1 The same rules as to construction and validity apply as in the case of mechanical inventions. 2 2. TERM. Design patents are granted for three years and six months, for seven years, or for fourteen years, as the applicant may in his application elect. 3 III. PATENTABILITY. 4 A. In General. The subject-matter of patents must not only come within the statutory classes, but must be new 5 and useful. 6 It must further be of such a character as to have called for an exercise of the inventive or creative faculties of the mind, as distinguished from the mere exercise of the knowledge and judg- ment expected of those skilled in the particular art. 7 It must not have been abandoned by the inventor, 8 nor have become public property by forfeiture under statutory provisions. 9 B. Novelty 10 1. IN GENERAL. The subject-matter of patents must be new. 11 353. The test of identity is the sameness of appearance to the eye of the ordinary ob- server. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 146 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 763, 37 L. ^d. 606. Utility is to be considered in determining invention. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. ed. 606; Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94, 26 L. ed. 939. Where the peculiarities of an applicant's design do not rise to the dignity of invention, the design is not patentable, although the pe- culiarities are such as to prevent the design from being regarded in the trade as a sub- stitute for a design already patented. In re Schraubstadter, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 331. 1. In re Schraubstadter, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 331. Compare Williams Calk Co. v. Kemmerer, 145 Fed. 928, 76 C. C. A. 466 [affirming 136 Fed. 210]. 2. Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359; U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4933 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3399]. 3. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4931 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3399]. 4. Conclusiveness and effect of decision in patent office as to patentability of invention see infra, V, C, 15. 5. See infra, III, B, 1. 6. See infra, III, D, 1. 7. See infra, III, E, 1. 8. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886. And see supra, II, G. 9. Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Dawson v. Follen, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,670, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 9, 2 Wash. 311. And see infra, II, F. 10. Application to new use as involving in- vention see infra, III, E, 13. Conclusiveness and effect of decisions of patent office see infra, V, C, 15. 11. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886; In re Moeser, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307; Richards 0. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225; Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 F. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Smyth Mfg. Co. v. Sheridan, 149 Fed. 208, 79 C. C. A. 166; [II, G, 1] Sellers v. Cofrode, 35 Fed. 131; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Tower, 26 Fed. 451 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 633, 10 S. Ct. 1066, 34 L. ed. 551] ; Gardner v. Herz, 12 Fed. 491, 20 Blatchf. 538 [affirmed in 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158]; Bean v. Smallwood, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,173, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 133, 2 Story 408; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Conover v. Roach, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,125, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; In re Henry, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,371, McArthur Pat. Cas. 467; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [re- versed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240; Parker V. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Roberts v. Ward, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,918, 4 McLean 565, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 746; Seligman v. Day, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,643, 2 Ban. & A. 407, 14 Blatchf. 72; Stanley r. Whipple, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,286, 2 McLean 35, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 1; Thompson v. Haight, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,957; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,803, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213 [affirmed in 21 How. 88, 16 L. ed. 68] ; Ex p. Manceaux, L. R. 6 Ch. 272. 18 Wkly. Rep. 1184; Stocker v. Warn, 1 C. B. 148, 9 Jur. 136, 50 E. C. L. 148; Ralston v. Smith, 20 C. B. N. S. 28, 11 H. L. Cas. 223, 35 L. J. C. P. 49, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 1318; Harwood v. Great Northern R. Co., '11 H. L. Cas. 654, 35 L. J. Q. B. 27, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 771, 14 Wkly. Rep. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 1488; Hill v. Thompson, Holt N. P. 636, 3 E. C. L. 249, 2 Meriv. 622, 17 Rev. Rep. 156, 36 Eng. Re- print 239, 2 Moore C. P. 424, 8 Taunt. 375, 20 Rev. Rep. 488, 4 E. C. L. 190; White v. Toms, 37 L. J. Ch. 204, 17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 348. And see Butch v. Boyer, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 57. ;, Novelty either in result or mode of opera- tion is necessary. Batten v. Clayton, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,105. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 829 This is equally the case whether the invention claimed consists of an entire machine or improvement of a machine, or a combinatioiiyof several mechanical powers. 12 Patent rights of this kind are given only to inventors or discoverers of some new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or some new and useful improvement thereof. 13 And to be new the thing must not have been known to any one before. 14 2. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IN THIS COUNTRY. It must be new not merely to the patentee but to all people in the United States. 15 ,3. EXTENT OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. To negative novelty the prior knowledge must have been of the complete operative invention and must not have been mere theory or speculation as to what might be done. 16 Prior knowledge by a single person, however, is sufficient. 17 4. DATE OF KNOWLEDGE. The question of novelty is to be determined by the knowledge possessed by people in the United States at the time that the patentee makes the invention, 18 and not at the time that he secures his patent or files his application. 19 5. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR USE ABROAD. By the express provision of the federal Making and selling a part of an old and known manufacture as a new article of trade is not patentable. Seligman v. Day, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,643, 2 Ban. & A. 467, 14 Blatchf. 72. An article is not new merely because made by a new process. Cochrane v. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 S. Ct. 455, 28 L. ed. 433; American Wood Paper Co. r. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566, 23 L. ed. 31. Evidence of novelty. In all cases the great commercial success of a patented device, and the fact that it supplants or supersedes other devices of the same kind used for the same purpose, are evidence of patentable inven- tion, novelty, and utility of no mean order or low degree, and such facts are in many , cases persuasive evidence of a most valu- able conception. Heywood Bros., etc., Co. v. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. Co., 152 Fed. 453. Although the fact that a device has sup- planted prior devices in the trade may turn the scale in favor of the existence of in- vention, where that question is in doubt, yet such fact has no weight where the want of patentable novelty is already reasonably clear. Utility is not novelty. In re Garrett, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 19. 12. Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 4^2. 13. Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34. 14. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886. And see infra, III, D. 15. Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., 22 Fed. 649; Miller v. Foree, 9 Fed. 603 [affirmed in 116 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 204, 29 L. ed. 552] ; Larabee V. Cortlan, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,084, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 5, Taney 180. And see infra, III, C, 1, d. 16. Gordon v. Warder, 150 U. S. 47, 14 S. Ct. 32, 37 L. ed. 992; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252; Sickles v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535. And see infra, III, C, 1, b. Suggestion of result not means will not an- ticipate. Graham v. Gammon, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,668, 3 Ban. & A. 7, 7 Biss. 490. Mere suggestion not sufficient. Diamond Match Co. v. Schenck, 71 Fed. 521 [affirmed in 77 Fed. 208, 23 C. C. A. 122]. That invention must be operative see Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 91 F'ed. 381; Gormully, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Cycle Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 279. 17. See infra, III, C, 1, d. 18. Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 572; Wilcox v. Bookwalter, 31 Fed. 224; Con- solidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, 29 Fed. 449; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 6 Fed. 377, 19 Blatchf. 123; Comstock v. Sandusky Seat Co., 6 Fed. Caa. No. 3,082, 3 Ban. & A. 188, 13 Off. Gaz. 230; Dixon v. Moyer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324, 4 Wash. 68; National Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,051, 1 Ban. & A. 240, 12 Blatchf. 80, 6 Off. Gaz. 224; U. S., etc., Salamander Felting Co.. v. Haven, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,788, 2 Ban. & A'. 164, 9 Off. Gaz. 253. Patentee may show date of invention on the question of anticipation. Anderson V. Collins, 122 Fed. 451, 58 C. C. A. 669; Ban- nerman v. Sanford, 85 Fed. 448 ; . American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Rowland Falls Pulp Co., 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500; Von Schmidt v. Bowers, 80 Fed. 121, 25 C. C. A. 32d; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,740, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 44. 19. Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pave- ment Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Mc- Williams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. 419; Bartholomew v. Sawyer, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,070, 4 Blatchf. 347, 1 Fish, Pat. Cas. 516; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 137, 5 Sawy. 60S; Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Nichols v. Pearce, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,246, 7 Blatchf. 5; Treadwell v. Bladen, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14.154, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 531, 4 Wash. 703; White v. Allen, [HI, B, 5] 830 [30 Cye.] PATENTS statutes relating to patents and devices known and used in foreign countries, but not patented there nor described in a printed publication, such inventions or devices are patentable in the United States by a person without notice thereof. 20 If, however, he has notice thereof he cannot obtain a patent even though the invention or discovery had not been patented or described in any printed publica- tion abroad. 21 Prior to the enactment of the statute under consideration, a patent could not be allowed to an inventor unless he showed that he was the original inventor in relation to every part of the world. 22 6. PUBLICATION OR PATENT ABROAD. By the express provisions of such statutes, however, an invention or discovery cannot be patented in the United States, where it has hitherto been patented or described in a printed publication abroad. 23 7. NOVELTY OF MEANS. Patentable novelty may reside in the particular means used for accomplishing an old result. 24 8. NOVELTY OF FUNCTION OR RESULT. 25 Novelty may also reside in the use of old means in a new way or in a new relation where it performs new functions and produces a new result. 26 It is not negatived by the existence of the same thing 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440. 20. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4923 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3396]; Hurlbut V. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456, 9 S. Ct. 584, 32 L. ed. 1011; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986 [reversed on other grounds in 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500] ; Doyle v. Spauld- ing, 19 Fed. 744; Worswick Mfg. Co. t?. Steiger, 17 Fed. 250; Comely v. Marckwald, 17 Fed. 83, 21 Blatchf. 367; Bartholomew v. Sawyer, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,070, 4 Blatchf. 347, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 516; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Hays v. Sul- sor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Roemer v. Logowitz, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,996; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. And see infra, III, F, 2; IV, A, 9. Contra, Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118. In Canada prior public use abroad is a bar. Vannorman v. Leonard, 2 U. C. Q. B. 72. 21. Forbush v. Cook, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,931, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 668. 22. Dawson v. Follen, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,670, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 9, 2 Wash. 311. 23. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4923 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3396]; In re Schaeffer, 2 App. Cas. (D, CO 1. That foreign publication must clearly dis- close invention see Dececo Co. v. George E. Gilchrist Co., 125 Fed. 293, 60 C. C. A. 207 ; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch, 21 Fed. 580; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,405, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615. Descriptions in foreign publications as clear as the patent will anticipate. Woven-Wire Mattress Co. v. Whittlesey, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,058, 8 Biss. 23. 24. Cochrane v. Badische Anilin, etc., Fab- rik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 S. Ct. 455, 28 L. ed. 433; [III, B, 5] American Wood Paper Co. v. Fiber Disinte- grating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566, 23 L. ed. 31; Anderson r. Collins, 122 Fed. 451, 58 C. C. A. 669 ; Deere v. Rock Island Plow Co., 84 Fed. 171, 28 C. C. A. 308; Gottfried v. Bartholomae, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,632, 3 Ban. & A. 308, 8 Biss. 219, 13 Off. Gaz. 1128; Wilton v. Railroad Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,856. And see supra, II, A, 5. Novelty of operation may be invention. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhair- ing Mach. Co., 115 Fed. 498, 53 C. C. A. 230. Reversal of operation may be invention. Diamond Stone Sawing Mach. Co. v. Brown, 130 Fed. 896 [affirmed in 131 Fed. 910, 70 C. C. A. 248]; Eames v. Cook, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,239, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 146; In re Hebbard, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,314, McArthur Pat. Cas. 543; Howe v. Abbott, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,766, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 99, 2 Story 190. For cases showing want of novelty see Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 238 [affirmed in 204 U. S. 609, 27 S. St. 307, 51 L. ed. 645] ; In re Weber, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 29. 25. Application to new use as involving invention see infra, III, E, 13. 26. Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 556, 13 S. Ct. 719, 37 L. ed. 558; Topliff . Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Webster Loom Co. r. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177; Irwin v. Hassel- man, 97 Fed. 964, 38 C. C. A. 587 ; American Automaton Weighing Mach Co. r. Blauvelt, 50 Fed. 213; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Regu- lator Co. v. Copeland, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Ex p. Jacobs, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,158; Poillon r. Schmidt, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,241, 6 Blatchf., 290, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 476, 37 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 77; Wilton r. Railroad Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,856. And see infra, III, E, 13. Novelty of result indicates invention. Dodge v. Porter, 98 Fed. 624; Wood v. Packer, 17 Fed. 650. Substitution of equivalents. Tf a patentee shows a new result to be attained, and means which are new and novel for attaining that result, and the device indicated is operative, PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 831 used for another purpose where the new use is one which would not occur to one using the original thing. 27 9. NOVELTY OF FORM. Changes of shape or form to produce new functions and results may be patentable ; M but paten table novelty includes more than mere changes from prior inventions since the changes must amount to invention; 29 mere novelty of form is insufficient. 80 10. NOVELTY IN COMBINATION. 31 Novelty may reside in the arrangement or combination of old elements whereby an advantageous result is accomplished. 88 his patent is good, even if in subsequently ap- plying it he varies the means employed by substituting equivalents. Hillard v. Fisher Book Typewriter Co., 151 Fed. 34 {affirmed in 159 Fed. 439]. Where the question of novelty is in doubt, the fact that a new combination and arrange- ment of known elements produces a new and useful result, displacing other devices em- ployed for a like purpose, is sufficient to turn the scale in favor of invention. In re Thom- son, 26 App. Gas. (D. C.) 419. A change in prior devices, in order to be patentable, must be made by transferring an old device to use in an entirely different and unrelated art. In re Thurston, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 315. The fact that a new device or construction may have displaced others by reason of its manifest superiority is material only when the question of patentable novelty is other- wise a matter of doubt. Millett v . Allen, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 70. 27. Clough v. Gilbert, etc., Mfg. Co., 106 U. S. 166, 1 S. Ct. 188, 27 L. ed. 134. 28. Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. (U. S.) 330, 14 L. ed. 717; Gaboon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397; Davis v. Palmer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,645, 2 Brock. 298, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 518; Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,396, 2 Ban. & A. 60. 29. Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 909. And see infra, III, E, 1. 30. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works, 101 Fed. 584; Lovell v. Johnson, 82 Fed. 206; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,851, 4 Ban. & A. 355, 8 Biss. 545, 8 Reporter 262 [affirmed in 105 U. S. 566, 26 L. ed. 1172]. And see infra, III, E, 9. Changes of size, form, or proportion not patentable. Syracuse Chilled Plow Co. v. Robinson, 35 Fed. 502 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 655, 12 S. Ct. 988, 36 L. ed. 856] ; West v. Rae, 33 Fed. 45 ; Ex p. Chatfield, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,63 la; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, i Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Evans v. Robinson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,571, Brunn. Col. Cas. 400. Changing the form of a die is not inven- tion. Butler v. Steckel, 137 U. S. 21, 11 S. Ct. 25, 34 L. ed. 582 [affirming 27 Fed. 219] ; Smith t?. American Bridge Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,002, 3 Ban. & A. 565, 8 Biss. 312. Making grate to fit fire pot is not patent- able. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S. 164, 14 S. Ct. 68, 37 L. ed. 1039. 31. Combination of parts of prior invention as showing prior knowledge or use see infra, III, C, 4, i. Combination or aggregation as involving in- vention see infra, III, E, 20, 21. 32. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Office Spe- cialty Mfg. Co., 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201 [reversed on other grounds in 174 U. S. 492, 19 S. Ct. 641, 43 L. ed. 1058] ; A. R. Milner Seating Co. V. Yesbera, 133 Fed. 916, 67 C. C. A. 210; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 129 Fed. 378; Stilwell-Bierce, etc., Co. t;. Eufaula Cotton Oil Co., 117 Fed. 410, 54 C. C. A. 584 ; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Schroeder v. Brammer, 98 Fed. 880; Michigan Stove Co. v. Fuller- Warren Co., 81 Fed. 376; U. S. Printing Co. v. American Playing-Card Co., 70 Fed. 50; Welling v. Crane, 14 Fed. 571; Densmore v. Schofield, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,809, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 476, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 140; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948o. And see infra, III, E, 20, a. New result necessary. Unless the combi- nation of well-known elements accomplishes some new result, the mere multiplicity of elements does not make it patentable. So long as each element performs some old and well-known function, the result is not a pat- entable invention, but an aggregation of ele- ments. In re Hill, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 318. Substitution of element performing similar result. The substitution for an old element, in a combination, of an element performing a similar function, but constructed in a dif- ferent way, does not render the combination itself patentable where there is no resultant change in the operation. In such a case, although the substituted element may be su- perior, the invention lies in the element, and not in the combination. In re Hawley, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 324. Determination as to novelty. Where the elements of a combination sought to be pat- ented are well known, and, if not known in the combination described, are known in analogous combinations, the court is at lib- erty to determine whether there is any inven- [III, B, 10] 832 [30 Cye.] PATENTS C. Anticipation 33 1. IN GENERAL a. Introductory Statement. A pat- entee's claim to an invention is anticipated when it appears that another made the invention before the date when the patentee made it. 34 Such anticipation may consist of prior patents or publications. 85 To authorize the allowance of a patent there must be a substantial difference in principle from prior inventions. 36 If the prior invention relied on to defeat a subsequent patent existed and was used, it is of no consequence whether it was patented or not, 87 and abandonment of prior invention does not prevent anticipation. 38 Nevertheless mere surmises of earlier students of the same subject do not anticipate. 89 b. Full Disclosure Necessary. Nothing is an anticipation which is not a full and complete disclosure of the invention to the public such as will enable those skilled in the art to make and use it. 40 A disclosure which is insufficient to support a patent cannot be relied upon as an anticipation. 41 To amount to anticipation, however, it is not necessary that the ordinary laborer or mechanic could under- stand the disclosure. 42 e. Identity. 43 To amount to anticipation there must be identity in substance and not merely identity in form. 44 The two things must accomplish the same tion in using them in the exact combination claimed. In re Hill, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 318. Claim to combination is an admission that elements are old. Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. r. Improved Order of Red Men's Hall Assoc., 94 Fed. 155, 36 C. C. A. 125. Novelty of design, how determined. The novelty of a design is to be determined by the comparative appearance of the designs to the eyes of average observers, and not to the eyes of experts. In re Schraubstadter, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 331. 33. Original inventors and priority between inventors see infra, IV, A. 34. Chittenden v. Mallory, 41 Fed. 215. Anticipation must be by another and not by patentee. Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758. A process patent can only be anticipated by a similar process. It is not anticipated by mechanism which might, with slight altera- tions, have been adapted to carry out that process, unless at least such use of it would have occurred to one whose duty it was to make practical use of the mechanism de- scribed. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 48 L. ed. 968 [reversing 96 Fed. 850 (reversing 89 Fed. 721)]. Several patents. May be anticipation by several patents each showing parts. Voight- man v. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 133 Fed. 298. 35. Byerly t/. Cleveland Linseed Oil Works, 31 Fed. 73. Publication without use will bar. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Brooks v. Jen- kins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Ex p. Seeley, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,627; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058. 36. Smith v. Pearce, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,089, 2 McLean 176, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 13. 37. Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,030, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 108; Rich v. Lippincott, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,758, 2 Fish. Pnt. Cas. 1; Whipple v. Baldwin Mfg. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,514, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29. [HI, C, l,a] 38. Merrimac Mattress Mfg. Co. i\ Feld- man, 133 Fed. 64. 39. American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, 87 Fed. 873. 40. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Ideal Stopper Co., 123 Fed. 666 [affirmed in 131 Fed. 244, 65 C. C. A. 436]; U. S. Peg- Wood, etc., Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 122 Fed. 470 [affirmed in 125 Fed. 378, 60 C. C. A. 244] ; McNeely v. Williames, 96 Fed. 978, 37 C. C. A. 641; Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co., 96 Fed. 344, 99 Fed. 500; -Shannon v. Bruner, 33 Fed. 289 [affirmed in 149 U. S. 767, 13 S. Ct. 1043, 37 L. ed. 930] ; Nathan v. New York El. R. Co., 2 Fed. 225; Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Parker, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 625, 4 Ban. & A. 292, 16 Blatchf. 281, 16 Off. Gaz. 495; Cahill i\ Brown, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,291, 3 Ban. & A. 580, 15 Off. Gaz. 697; Jenkins v. Walker, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,275, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 347, Holmes 120, 1 Off. Gaz. 359 ; Neilson v. Betts, L. R. 5 H. L. 1, 40 L. J. Ch. 317, 19 Wkly. Rep. 1121; Hill v. Evans, 4 De G. F. & J. '288, 8 Jur. N. S. 525, 31 L. J. Ch. 457, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 90 r 65 Eng. Ch. 223, 45 Eng. Reprint 1195; Betts i\ Menzies, 10 H. L. Cas. 117, 9 Jur. N. S. 29, 31 L. J. Q. B. 233, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 11 Wkly. Rep. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 970; Otto v. Linford, 46 L. T. Rep. N. S. 35 ; Betts v. De Vitre, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 445; General Engineering Co. r. Dominion Cotton Mills Co., 6 Can. Exch. 309. 41. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 163. 42. Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corp. v. King, [1892] A. C. 367; Pickard v. Prescott, [1892] A. C. 263; Betts v. Neilson, L. R. 3 Ch. 429, 37 L. J. Ch. 321, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 165, 16 Wkly. Rep. 524-. 43. Conclusiveness and effect of decision of patent office as to identity of invention in reissue proceedings sea infra, VIII, G. Identity of invention as showing right of patentee to reissue see infra, VIII, C. 44. Matter of Merrill, 1 McArthur (D. C.) 301; Fryer v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 30 Fed. 787; Crandal v. Walters, 9 Fed. 659, 20 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 833 purpose by substantially the same means operating in substantially the same way. 45 Blatchf. 97; Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 53, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. Similarity of appearance is not proof of identity. Carr v. Rice, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198. Identity of form is not necessary. In re Bedford, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 376. Identity is not a matter of words of de- scription but of things. Poupard v. Fardell, 18 Wkly. Rep. 127. 45. Decisions in which facts were held to show identity. In re Hodges, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 525; In re McNeil, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 461 ; In re Hoey, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 416; In re Welch, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 362; Johnston i?. Woodbury, 109 Fed. 567, 48 C. C. A. 550; Root v. Third-Ave. R. Co., 43 Fed. 73 ; Berryman v. Ainsworth Boiler, etc., Covering Co., 40 Fed. 879; Norton v. Gary, 39 Fed. 544; Wight Fire-Proofing Co. v. Chicago Fire-Proof Co., 35 Fed. 582; Sox ?. Taylor Iron Works, 30 Fed. 835 [affirmed in 149 U. S. 785, 13 S. Ct. 1051, 37 L. ed. 964] ; Dodds v. Stoddard, 17 Fed. 645; Matte- son v. Caine, 17 Fed. 525, 8 Sawy. 498; Cran- dall v. Richardson, 8 Fed. 808; Blackman v. Kibbler, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,471, 4 Ban. & A. 641, 17 Blatchf. 333, 17 Off. Gaz. 107; Gould v. Ballard, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,635, 3 Ban. & A. 324, 13 Off. Gaz. 1081; Richardson v. Lock- wood, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,787, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 454, 4 Off. Gaz. 398. Decisions in which the facts were held to show lack of identity. In re Weiss, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; In re Marsden, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 223; In re Green, 20 D. C. 237; Thayer v. Wold, 142 Fed. 776 [affirmed in 148 Fed. 227, 78 C. C. A. 350]; Greene v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 132 Fed. 973, 66 C. C. A. 43; Diamond State Iron Co. v. Goldie, 84 Fed. 972, 28 C. C. A. 589; Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 Fed. 374; Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. 17. Whitehouse, 56 Fed. 589; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Westinghouse, 55 Fed. 490 [reversed on other grounds in 63 Fed. 588, 11 C. C. A. 342] ; Winchester Repeating Arm Co. t?. American Buckle, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 703; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. W. G. & A. R. Morrison Co., 54 Fed. 693; Ricker v. Crocker-Wheeler Motor Co., 54 Fed. 519; Roberts v. H. P. Nail Co., 53 Fed. 916; Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Heineken, 43 Fed. 75 ; Brush Electric Co. v. Julian Electric Co., 41 Fed. 679; Norton v. Cary, 39 Fed. 544; O'Brien Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Peoria Plow Co., 34 Fed. 786; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 34 Fed. 134; Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Bancroft, 32 Fed. 585; Starling v. St. Paul Plow Works, 32 Fed. 290; Cincinnati Ice-Mach. Co. v. Foss-Schneider Brewing Co., 31 Fed. 469; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Rathbone, 26 Fed. 262; Hicks v. Otto, 19 Fed. 749; Bruce v. Marder, 10 Fed. 750, 20 Blatchf. 355; Robin- son v. Sutter, 8 Fed. 828, 10 Biss. 100 [re- versed on other grounds in 119 U. S. 530, 7 S. Ct. 376, 30 L. ed. 492] ; Watkjns v. Cin- cinnati, 8 Fed. 325; Hobbs v. King, 8 Fed. 91; Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. 914; Pennington v. [53] King, 7 Fed. 462 ; Ex p. Barstow, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,063; Blake v. Rawson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,499, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 74, Holmes 200, 3 Off. Gaz. 122; Bullock Printing Press Co. v. Jones, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,132, 3 Ban. & A. 195, 13 Off. Gaz. 124; Cooke v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,176, 4 Ban. & A. 398, 16 Off. Gaz. 856; Decker v. Grote, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,726, 10 Blatchf. 331, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143, 3 Off. Gaz. 65 ; Gibbs v. Johnson, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,384; Ex p. Hay- den, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,256; In re Hebbard, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,314, 1 McArthur Pat. Cas. 543; Ex p. Leach, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,155; Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. v. Erie R. Co., 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,452, 10 Blatchf. 292, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 187, 3 Off. Gaz. 93; Masury v. Tiemann, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,271, 8 Blatchf. 426, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 524; Platt v. U. S. Patent Button, etc., Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,222, 9 Blatchf. 342, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 265, 1 Off. Gaz. 524; Reeves v. Key- stone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, ,1 Off. Gaz. 466; Schil- linger v. Gunther, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,458, 17 Blatchf. 66, 14 Off. Gaz. 713; In re Smith, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,982, 1 McArthur Pat. Cas. 255; Tilghman v. Morse, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,044, 9 Blatchf. 421, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 323, 1 Off. Gaz. 574; Yale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. North, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,123, 5 Blatchf. 455, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 279. Lack of identity in woven fabrics see Hoyle v. Kerr, 58 Fed. 395, 7 C. C. A. 269. Lack of identity in materials see Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Lamparter, 51 Fed. 763; Shuter v, Davis, 16 Fed. 564; Simons v. Blackinton, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,866, 3 Ban. & A. 481. Lack of identity in process see Simonds Rolling Mach. Co. 17. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 93 Fed. 958, 36 C. C. A. 24. Substantial identity of materials see Giles v. Heysinger, 150 U. S. 627, 14 S. Ct. 211, 37 L. ed. 1204. Difference in operation see Keystone Mfg. Co. i?. Adams, 151 U. S. 139, 14 S. Ct. 295, 38 L. ed. 103; Hubbell v. U. S., 20 Ct. 01. 354; Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56, 3 Ban. & A. 1, 12 Off. Gaz. 93; Barnes 17. Straus, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,022, 9 Blatchf. 553, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531, 2 Off. Gaz. 62; Miller 17. Androscoggin Pulp Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,559, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340, Holmes 142, 1 Off. Gaz. 409; Potter 17. Muller, 19 Fed. Cas No. 11,334, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Pike v. Provi- dence, etc., R. Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,163, 1 Ban. & A. 560, Holmes 445, 6 Off. Gaz. 575 ; Putnam v. Hickey, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,480, 3 Biss. 157, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 334, 2 Off. Gaz. 225; Sanford v. Messer, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,314, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411, Holmes 149, 2 Off. Gaz. 470; Watson v. Cunningham, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,280, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528. Difference in result see Robbins v. Colum- bus Watch Co., 50 Fed. 545; Stuart 17. Thor- man, 37 Fed. 90; Putnam v. Weatherbee, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,485, 2 Ban. & A. 78, 8 Off. [Ill, C, 1, e] 834: [30 Cye.] PATENTS Resemblance without identity is insufficient. 46 But identity need extend no fur- ther than to matter claimed. 47 And mere superiority of the invention for which a patent is sought does not prevent anticipation. 48 What would infringe the claims of a patent will anticipate it if prior in date. 49 d. General Knowledge of Public Unnecessary. It is not necessary that the anticipating invention be known generally or that it is a matter of common knowledge, 50 but it is sufficient that some members of the public in this country knew of the invention. 51 Knowledge by a single member of the public is sufficient. 52 Gaz. 320; Putnam v. Yerrington, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,486, 2 Ban. & A. 237, 9 Off. Gaz. 689; Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752 [reversed on other grounds in 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910]; Willimantic Linen Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,763, 4 Ban. & A. 133. Lack of identity in the structure of books see Hawes v. Cook, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,236, 5 Off. Gaz. 493; Hawes v. Gage, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,237, 5 Off. Gaz. 494; Hawes v. Wash- burne, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,242, 5 Off. Gaz. 491. Designs. Identity of designs is identity of appearance so that one would be mistaken for the other. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 20 L. ed. 731; Sagen- dorph v. Hughes, 95 Fed. 478; Frank v. Hess, 84 Fed. 170; Braddock Glass Co. v. Macbeth, 64 Fed. 118, 12 C. C. A. 70; Britton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93. Ability to distinguish one design from another will not avoid anticipation. In re Freeman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 226. Changes and additions. An old device will not be considered sufficient to defeat a pat- ent, when its construction is such that radi- cal changes and additions would be required before it could be made to perform the work of the patented device satisfactorily. West- ern Electric Co. v. Home Tel. Co., 85 Fed. 649 ; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, 29 Fed. 449; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,413, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 521. There is no anticipation where modification is necessary to produce the desired result. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Office Specialty Mfg. Co., 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201; Ryan v. Newark Spring Mattress Co., 96 Fed. 100. Identity of structure is not necessary but the same result should be produced by sub- stantially the same means and operation. In re Marshutz, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228. Reversal of operation will not avoid antici- pation. Bryant Electric Co. v. Electric Pro- tection Co., 110 Fed. 215. Mere suggestions as to what may be done but not how to do it will not anticipate. Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 59 Fed. 902. Devices may be the same, although not de- signed for same use. Codman v. Amia, 70 Fed, 710 [affirmed in 74 Fed. 634, 20 C. C. A. 566] ; Wright, etc., Wire-Cloth Co. v. Clin- ton, 67 Fed. 790, 14 C. C. A. 646. Inefficient substitutes. A patent for a successful machine is not void for anticipa- tion, because a prior machine intended for a different purpose may possibly be capable [HI, C, 1, c] of use as an inefficient substitute for the later machine. United Shirt, etc., Co. v. Beattie, 149 Fed. 736, 79 C. C. A. 442 [af- firming 138 Fed. 136]. 46. Wilson v. Coon, 6 Fed. 611, 18 Blatchf. 532; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44. 47. Patent covers only what is claimed. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Roemer v. New- mann, 132 U. S. 103, 10 S. Ct. 12, 33 L. ed. 277; Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 25 L. ed. 738; Merrell v. Yeomans, C. D. 1877, 279; Keystone v. Phoenix, C. D. 1877, 384 ; Sutter i\ Robinson, C. D. 1885, 155; Lehigh Valley v. Mellon, C. D. 1881, 485. 48. Daniels v. Restein, 131 Fed. 469 [af- firmed in 146 Fed. 74, 76 C. C. A. 536]; Waterman v. Thomson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,260, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461. 49. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S, Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121 ; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221. 14 S. Ct. 81, 37 L. ed. 1059; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 13 S. Ct. 699, 37 L. ed. 552; Peters r. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U. S. 530, 9 S. Ct. 389, 32 L. ed. 738; Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pittsburg Reduction Co., 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636 ; Eames v. Worcester Polytechnic Inst., 123 Fed. 67, 60 C. C. A. 37; National Hollow Brake Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co., 99 Fed. 758; Electric Ac- cumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 319. What would not infringe cannot anticipate. Stainthorp v. Elkinton, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,278, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 349. Omission which would be supplied by me- chanic does not prevent anticipation. Wood- man v. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98. 50. Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1.217, 1 Mason 302, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 148. Disuse of prior device does not avoid antici- pation. Packard v. Gilbert, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,651. Use concealed from public view will antici- pate. Spring v. Packard, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,260, 1 Ban. & A. 531, 7 Off. Gaz. 341. 51. Daniel v. Restein, 131 Fed. 4G9 [af- firmed in 146 Fed. 74, 76 C. C. A. 536] ; Evans v. Hettick, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4.562, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 166, 3 Wash. 408 [affirmed in 7 Wheat. 453, 5 L. ed. 490]. 52. Egbert r. Lippmann, 104 U. S. 333, 26 L. ed. 755; McClurg . Kingsland, 1 How. (U. S.) 202, 11 L. ed. 102; Boston Elastic Fabrics Co. v. East Hampton Rubber Thread Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,675, 2 Ban. & A. 268, PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 835 e. Patentee's Knowledge of Anticipation Unnecessary. It is not of con- sequence that the patentee made the invention by his own efforts and thought and in ignorance of the prior invention by another, since the fact of prior inven- tion is what controls. 53 2. PRIOR PATENTS a. In General. A patent disclosing the invention granted in this country or abroad before the claimant's date of invention is a bar to the grant of a patent to him for that invention. 54 A prior patent alleged to anticipate must be taken in the meaning disclosed upon its face, and extrinsic evidence is not admissible to reconstruct it, as by showing that a word having a sensible mean- ing in the context was erroneously used for another word. 55 It cannot properly have implied into it, from necessity, more than it fairly shows, to make it represent an operative structure. What is required and not so shown is left for later inven- tors. 56 An impracticable prior device, not capable of performing the functions of a subsequent patented device that is practicable and useful, is not an anticipa- tion. 57 Furthermore in order that a prior patent may operate to defeat a subse- quent patent, the two must be for the same invention. 58 b. Foreign Patents. A foreign patent in order to invalidate an American patent must antedate the invention patented, 59 not merely the application for letters patent, 60 or the issuance of the patent by the United States. 61 A foreign patent exists as a patent only as of the date when the invention was published or made accessi- ble to the public. 62 An invention is not " patented " in England within the mean* ing of the act of congress until the enrolment or sealing of the complete specifica- tions. 63 The enrolled specification takes effect only from the date of its enrolment, 9 Off. Gaz. 745; Packard v. Gilbert, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,651; Reed v. Cutter, 20 Fed. Gas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590; Rich v. Lippincott, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,758, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,388, 2 Blatchf. 37, Fish. Pat. Rep. 144. And see supra, III, B, 3. 53. See infra, III, E, 4. Ignorance of patentee no defense. Patter- son v. Gas Light, etc., Co., 3 App. Cas. 239, 47 L. J. Ch. 402, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 303, 26 Wkly. Rep. 482; In re Honiball, 9 Moore P. C. 378, 14 Eng. Reprint 340. 54. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886, 4923 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3396]; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Muntz v. Foster, 2 Web. Pat. Cas. 96. It is a good defense to an action for in- fringement that the patented device was an- ticipated by a prior patent to the same pat- entee. Barnes Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Walforth Mfg. Co.. 60 Fed. 605, 9 C. C. A. 154. 55. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 163. 56. Wirt v. Farrelly, 84 Fed. 891. 57. Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 91 Fed. 381 ; Harwood v. Mill River Woolen Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,187, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 526; Hitchcock t?. Tremaine, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,538, 8 Blatchf. 440, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 508. Slight modifications to perform function of later patent. A patent is not anticipated by prior patents for devices which might by- slight modifications have been made to per- form the functions of that of the later pat- ent, where it does not appear that the pat- entees had in mind their use or adaptation to accomplish such result. Gunn v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 148 Fed. 239 [reversed in 152 Fed. 434, 81 C. C. A. 576, where patent was de- clared void]. 58. See infra, V, C, 8. 59. Elizabeth t?. American Nicholson Pave- ment Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000 ; Coch- rane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co., 148 Fed. 622, 78 C. C. A. 394; Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586. The words "previously patented in a for- eign country " must be taken to mean " pat- ented according to the laws and usages of such foreign country." Atlas Glass Co. v. Simonds Mfg. Co., 102 Fed. 643, 647, 42 C. C. A. 554. 60. Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440, holding that where a foreign pat- ent, granted before the application of the American patentee, is relied upon to destroy the novelty of the American patent, the pat- entee may prove that his invention was made prior to the granting of the foreign patent. 61. Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pave- ment Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000. In other words an invention reduced to practice in the United States prior to the granting of an English patent will be sus- tained as against such patent. National Spring Co. v. Union Car Spring Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,051, 1 Ban. & A. 240, 12 Blatchf. 80, 6 Off. Gaz. 224. 62. De Florez v. Raynolds, 17 Off. Gaz. 503. 63^ Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 73; Ireson v. Pierce, 39 Fed. 795; [III, C, 2, b] 836 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS and not from the date of the filing of the provisional specification. 64 The instru- ment known under the German law as " Gebrauchsmuster" is not one the filing of which charges any one with notice of its contents or which has the effect of a foreign patent as an anticipation of a subsequent United States patent. 65 c. Paper Patents. It is well settled that mere paper patents may negative otherwise patentable novelty, provided they sufficiently disclose the principles of the alleged invention, or provided the alleged objections can be obviated by mere mechanical skill. 66 But anticipatory matter which has never gone into practical use is to be narrowly construed. 67 d. Secret Patents. The expression " patented," as used in a statute, 68 provid- ing that, in an action for infringement, defendant may prove that the patentee's invention had been patented prior to his supposed invention, means only invention laid open to the public and protected to the inventors. 69 There are, however, in some foreign countries, patents which may, for public and special reasons, be kept secret. Therefore defendant must show whether the alleged anticipating patent was a public or a private grant. 70 e. Sufficiency of Description. A prior patent to invalidate a subsequent pat- ent must describe the invention in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the art to construct and use it without the necessity of making experiments. 71 The sufficiency of the description in the prior patent must be Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Elec- tric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Railway Register Mfg. Co. r. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 26 Fed. 522 [affirmed in 149 U. S. 783, 13 S. Ct. 1051, 37 L. ed. 958] ; Howe r. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; Williman- tic Linen Co. r. Clark Thread Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,763, 4 Ban. & A. 133; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Cushman, 65 Off. Gaz. 135. 64. Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586. An English provisional specification is not an anticipation until it has been printed, the invention described in it not being patented until the completed specification is filed. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 952; Parsons v. Colgate, 15 Fed. 600, 21 Blatchf. 171; Coburn v. Schroeder, 11 Fed. 425, 20 Blatchf. 392. 65. Steiner v. Schwarz, 148 Fed. 863. 66. Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. ed. 749; Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 80 Off. Gaz. 1273; Miller v. Meriden Bronze Co., 79 Off. Gaz. 1520. Where more than mechanical skill is re- quired a paper patent will not anticipate. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Winchester Ave. R. Co., 71 Fed. 192. 67. Simonds Rolling-Mach. Co. v. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 201. However a patentee cannot be denied in- vention because of a prior patent for a device which never came into use, unless the idea upon which his patent is predicated is so clearly set forth or suggested in the alleged anticipating patent that a mechanic with such patent before him could by the exercise of mere mechanical skill so modify propor- tions or change the mode of operation as to overcome the difficulties which excluded the prior device from commercial utility. Ideal Stopper Co. v. Crown Cork, etc., Co., 131 Fed. 244, 65 C. C. A. 436 [affirming 123 Fed. 666]. [III. C, 2, b] 68. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920, par. 3. 69. Schoerken v. Swift, etc., Co., 7 Fed. 469, 19 Blatchf. 209; Brooks v. Norcross, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,957, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 661. 70. Brooks f. Norcross, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,957, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 661. But, as against an objection that it did not appear from the copy of a foreign patent, introduced to show prior invention, whether it was an open or a secret one, it has been held that, since only public records are provable by copy certified merely, and as the authorities of a foreign government would not have a patent in a condition to be certified if it was secret, the fact that it is certified shows it to be public. Schoerken v. Swift, etc., Co., 7 Fed. 4G9, 19 Blatchf. 209. 71. Matter of McCloskey, 3 Mac Arthur (D. C.) 14; Pettibone v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 133 Fed. 730 [reversed on other grounds in 141 Fed. 95] ; Springfield Furnace Co. v. Miller Down-Draft Furnace Co., 96 Fed. 418; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 89 Fed. 721; Hanifen v. E. H. Godschalk Co., 84 Fed. 649, 28 C. C. A. 507 [reversing 78 Fed. 811] ; Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 59 Fed. 902; U. S. Bung Mfg. Co. v. Independent Bung, etc., Co., 31 Fed. 76, 24 Blatchf. 406; Nathan v. New York El. R. Co., 2 Fed. 225; Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Parker, 2 Fed. Cas. No. G25, 4 Ban. & A. 292, 16 Blatchf. 281, 16 Off. Gaz. 87; Goff r. Stafford, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,504, 3 Ban. & A. 610, 14 Off. Gaz. 748; Jenkins v. Walker, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,275, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 347, Holmes 120, 1 Off. Gaz. 359; Woodman r. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98 [re- versed on other grounds in 10 Wall. 117, 19 L. ed. 866]; Betts v. Men/.ies, 10 H. Lv Cas. 117, 9 Jur. N. S. 29, 31 L. J. Q. B. 233, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 11 Wkly. Rep. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 970. PA TENTS [30 Cyc.] 837 tested by the knowledge of persons skilled in the art as it existed at the date of such patent. 72 f. Failure to Claim Immaterial. It is immaterial whether the prior patent includes a claim to the subject-matter so long as it discloses it with such clearness as to enable one skilled in the art to make and use it. 73 The failure of the patentee to include the device among the claims of his own invention implies either that he abandoned it to the public or that he regarded it as well known. 74 The patent is evidence of the state of the art at the time the drawings arid specifications upon which it was afterward granted were made, and it is the state of the art and not the patent which constitutes anticipation. 73 3. PRIOR PUBLICATION a. In General. A prior publication is a printed book, newspaper, or document of public character disclosing the invention intended and actually employed for the purpose of conveying information to the public. 76 The invention must be intended for the public and actually published. 77 b. Sufficiency of Publication. Publication in a book of general circulation is sufficient. 78 But mere business catalogues or circulars intended for particular per- sons engaged in the trade are not publications within the meaning of the law. 79 Otherwise, however, as to trade magazines found in libraries. 80 A published drawing without description is a publication of the invention if the disclosure therein is sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to make and use it. 81 A pro- visional specification published in England amounts to publication. 82 A book con- taining the minutes of a company, 83 or an application for a patent, 84 is not a publi- Insufficient descriptions. A patent so ob- scure in its terminology that two conflicting theories as to its meaning may be deduced therefrom and supported by equally plausible arguments is too indefinite to operate as an anticipation. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Corn- stock Unhairing Co., 115 Fed. 524. So mere prophetical suggestions in a patent as to the possibilities of an invention, when no one has ever tested the truth of the suggestions, do not anticipate a subsequent patent for the invention suggested. Westinghouse Air- Brake Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 88 Fed. 258, 81 C. C. A. 525. Mechanism. Where a patent is for mechan- ism by which a particular result is pro- duced, a prior patent, in order to anticipate it, must contain more than -a mere state- ment that the result may be accomplished. It must contain a description of the me- chanism by which it is accomplished. Graham v. Gammon, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,668, 3 Ban. & A. 7, 7 Biss. 490. 72. Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 91 Fed. 381. 73. In re Millet, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; Saunders v. Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157. Compare Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37; Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Marble, 19 Fed. 307; Graham v. McCormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39, all holding that an inventor is not barred from obtaining a patent because his invention is described, although not claimed, in a prior patent to himself. 74. In re Millett, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665; Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783. 75. In re Millett, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186. 76. Britton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93. 77. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368. 78. Lang v. Gisborne, 31 Beav. 133, 8 Jur. N. S. 736, 31 L. J. Ch. 769, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 771, 10 Wkly. Rep. 368, 54 Eng. Re- print 1088; Stead v. Williams, 8 Jur. 930, 13 L. J. C. P. 218, 7 M. & G. 818, 8 Scott N. R. 440, 49 E. C. L. 818. 79. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Britton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch, 21 Fed. 580; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368; Parsons v. Colgate, 24 Off. Gaz. 203; Atterbury's Ap- peal, 9 Off. Gaz. 640. 80. Truman v. Carvill Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 470. 81. In re Millett, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 S. Ct. 1, 39 L. ed. 64; Britton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93; Webb v. Quintard, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,324, 9 Blatchf. 352, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 276, 1 Off. Gaz. 525. But see Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368. 82. Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., 6 Fed. Cas. 2,969, 1 Ban & A. 340, 12 Blatchf. 225, 6 Off. Gaz. 259 [affirmed in 93 U. S. 366, 23 L. ed. 907]. 83. Pennock v. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 4 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327]. 84. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. 0. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 18 Fed. [III. C, 3, b] 838 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS cation. So a single copy of a book published in a foreign country not entered in the list of books contained in a library is not a publication. 85 Copies of foreign patents in the patent office or public libraries accessible to all amount to sufficient publication. 86 e. Sufficiency of Description. The publication must describe the invention so fully as to enable one skilled in the art to which it belongs or pertains to construct or use it. 87 4. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND USE a. Sufficiency of Knowledge. Anticipating knowledge must be of the complete operative invention such as will enable those skilled in the art without further instructions to make and use it. 88 b. Mental Idea Insufficient. Anticipating knowledge includes not the mere mental conception that the thing can be done, 89 and of the means for doing it, but the certainty of information derived from a practical demonstration. 90 Mere theories are insufficient. 91 c. Necessity FOP Perfected Invention. To constitute an anticipation the inven- tion must have been in a form adapted and intended for immediate practical use. 92 An inoperative device will not anticipate, 93 Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 177, 6 Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227. 85. Plimpton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412, 47 L. J. Ch. 211, 37 L. T. Rep, N. S. 56, 26 Wkly. Rep. 285. 86. Harris v. Rothwell, 35 Ch. D. 416, 56 L. J. Ch. 459, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 552, 35 Wkly. Rep. 581; Plimpton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412, 47 L. J. Ch. 211, 37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 56, 26 Wkly. Rep. 285; British Tanning Co. v. Groth, 60 L. J. Ch. 235, 64 L. T. Rep. N. S. 21. 87. Driven Well Cases, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pittsburg Re- duction Co., 125 Fed, 926, 60 C. C. A. 636; Western Electric Co. v. Millheim Electric Tel. Co., 88 Fed. 505; Am Ende v. Seabury, 36 Fed. 593 [affirmed in 152 U. S. 581, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553] ; Hood v. Boston Car- Spring Co., 21 Fed. 67; Nathan v. New York El. R. Co., 2 Fed. 225; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Colgate v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,991, 4 Ban, & A. 415, 16 Blatchf. 503, 16 Off. Gaz. 583; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; McMillin v. Bar- clay, 1 6 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Roberts v. Dickey, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,899, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532, 1 Off. Gaz. 4, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 260. 88. Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S, Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553 ; Driven Well Cases, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Hood v. Boston Car-Spring Co., 21 Fed. 67; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Roberts v. Dickey, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,899, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532, 1 Off. Gaz. 4, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 260. And see supra, III, C, 1, b. 89. Cobb v. Goebel, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 75. [Ill, C, 3, b] 90. Howe v. Underwood, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,775, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 160; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,- 415, 3 Biss. 52, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 584. And see infra, III, C, 4, d; IV, A, 4. 91. National Co. v. Belcher, 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375; Cox v. Griggs, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,302, 1 Biss. 362, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; Judson v. Bradford, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,564, 3 Ban. & A. 539, 16 Off. Gaz. 171; Park- hurst v. Kinsman, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,757, 1 Blatchf. 488, Fish. Pat. Rep. 161, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 146; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62; Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,368a; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, McAllister 48; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600. And see supra, II, A, 3. 92. Lindemeyr i?. Hoffman, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. (U.S.) 120, 21 L. ed. 821; Buser v. Novelty Tufting Mach. Co., 151 Fed. 478, 81 C. C. A. 16; Allis v. Buckstaff, 13 Fed. 879; Putnam v. Hollender, 6 Fed. 882, 19 Blatchf. 48; Ex p. Henry, L, R. 8 Ch. 167, 42 L. J. Ch. 363, 21 Wkly. Rep. 233; Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 Ch. 570, 20 Wkly. Rep. 649; Lewis v. Marl- ing, 10 B. & C. 22, 21 E. C. L. 20, 4 C. & P. 52, 19 E. C. L. 403, 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 46, 5 M. & R. 66; Pneumatic Tire Co. v. East London Rubber Co., 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 488. Mere laboratory experiments will not an- ticipate. Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pitts- burg Reduction Co., 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636. 93. Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 131 Fed. 257; Hale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Oneonta, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 598; Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co., 127 Fed. 691, 62 C. C. A. 447; Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co., 124 Fed. 764 [affirmed in 128 Fed. 599, 64 C. C. A. 107] ; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co., 115 Fed. 498, 53 C. C. A. 230. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 839 d. Necessity For Demonstration of Success. Ordinarily the invention must Lave been tested and found satisf actor} 7 , 94 although some devices are so simple that no test is necessary to demonstrate their success. 95 And mere mechanical defects which would be cured by the ordinary mechanic will not prevent anticipation. 96 e. Abandoned or Unsuccessful Experiments. Mere unsuccessful and aban- doned experiments do not constitute anticipating knowledge or use. 97 To justify 94. Dashiell v. Tasker, 21 App. Gas. (D. C.) 64; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Gas. No. 10,740, 1 Fish. Pat. Gas. 44; Fefel v. Stocker, 94 Off. Gaz. 433; Kelly v. Fynn, 92 Off. Gaz. 1237. And see supra, III, C, 4, b; infra, IV, A, 5. Process must have been actually performed. Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 175, Holmes 20 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200] ; Croskey v. Atterbury, 76 Off. Gaz. 163. Commercial use is not necessary. Wyman v. Donnelly, 21 App. Gas. (D. C.) 81. 95. Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. Gas. and from which no information of its existence, and no knowledge of a method of its employment, is derived by any one, if proved to have occurred, will not be sufficient to defeat the claim of him who first discovers the principle, and, by Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98. Combinations of similar elements which could not be successfully used to produce the effect produced by the patented machine do not anticipate the patent. Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,270, 3 Biss 66, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330. A single experimental use of an apparatus, afterward destroyed, in such way as to in- volve the practice of a certain process, does not prevent a subsequent original inventor or discoverer of the same process from having a valid patent therefor. Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175, Holmes 20. Mere failure, to use invention will not pre- vent anticipation. McNish v. Everson, 2 Fed. 899; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,414, 1 Biss. 468, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 523; Shoup v. Henrici, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,- 814, 2 Ban. & A. 249; Waterman v. Thomson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,260, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461. Where a patent has been granted for im- provements which, after a full and fair trial, resulted in unsuccessful experiments, and have been finally abandoned, if any other person takes up the subject of the improve- ments and is successful he is entitled to the merit of them as an original inventor. Whitely v. Swayne, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 685, 19 L. ed. 199. 98. Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675. 99. Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Dolbear v. American Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863; American Writing Mach. Co. r. Wagner Typewriter Co., 151 Fed. 576, 81 C. C. A. 120 [affirming 138 Fed. 108] ; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., 77 [HI, C, 4, e] Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 [affirming 69 Fed. 608] ; Uhlmann v. Bartholomse, etc., Brewing Co., 41 Fed. 132; Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, 29 Fed. 288; Detroit Lubricator Mfg. Co. v. Renchard, 9 Fed. 293; Judson v. Cope, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397; Ellithorp v. Robertson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,408, 4 Blatchf. 307, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 83; Reeves t>. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466; Hunter v. Stikeman, 85 Off. Gaz. 610; McCormick v. deal, 83 Off. Gaz. 1514; Croskey v. Atterbury, 76 Off. Gaz. 163; Porter v. Louden, 73 Off. Gaz. 1551; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch, 29 Off. Gaz. 535; In re Atterbury, 9 Off. Gaz. 640. 1. Detroit Lubricator Mfg. Co. v. Ren- chard, 9 Fed, 293 ; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466. 2. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 Fed. 191 ; German-American Filter Co. v. Erdrich, 98 Fed. 300 ; Tannage Patent Co. v. Donallan, 93 Fed. 811; Wickelman v. A. B. Dick, 88 Fed. 264, 31 C. C. A. 530; Taylor Burner Co. 1?. Diamond, 72 Fed. 182; Pittsburg Reduc- tion Co. v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 301; Boyd v. Cherry, 50 Fed. 279; Andrews v. Carman, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 371, 2 Ban. & A. 277, 13 Blatchf. 307, 9 Off. Gaz. 1011; Colgate v. Western Union Tel. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,995, 4 Ban. & A. 36, 15 Blatchf. 365, 14 Off. Gaz. 943; Pelton v. Waters, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10, 913, 1 Ban. & A. 599, 7 Off. Gaz. 425 ; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252. 3. Wickelman v. A. B. Di.ck Co., 88 Fed. 264, 31 C. C. A. 530. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 841 putting it to practical and intelligent use, first makes it available to man." 4 It lias been held, however, that to constitute anticipation of a later patent it is enough that such a construction had been in well-established use, whether it originated in design or by accident; 5 and an invention will not be deemed acci- dental because all the advantages thereof were not understood 6 or because the new form of result had not been before contemplated. 7 While as already shown an accidental and unnoted use does not amount to an anticipation, the mere discovery in an old combination of a new property however beneficial is not paten table. 8 h. Lost Art. An invention which was never made public and which has been forgotten will not anticipate. 9 But an invention merely concealed by the inventor is not a lost art. 10 i. Combination of Old Elements. 11 The fact that the various elements of a combination are old will not anticipate a claim to the combination. 12 To antici- pate a combination it must be shown that the same or equivalent elements have been combined in substantially the same way to produce substantially the same result. 13 4. Andrews v. Carman, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 371, 2 Ban. & A. 277, 13 Blatchf. 307, 323, 9 Off. Gaz. 1011 [quoted in Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co., 88 Fed. 264, 31 C. C. A. 530]. 5. National Harrow Co. v. Quick, 74 Fed. 236, 20 C. C. A. 410. 6. Merrimac Mattress Co. v. Feldman, 133 Fed. 64; Soehner v. Favorite Stove, etc., Co., 84 Fed. 182, 28 C. C. A. 317; Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. t?. Keith, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,970, 4 Ban. & A. 100 [affirmed in 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939]. 7. Ansonia Brass, etc., Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 11, 12 S. Ct. 601, 36 L. ed. 327 [affirming 32 Fed. 81, 35 F'ed. 68]. 8. National Meter Co. v. Neptune Meter Co., 122 Fed. 82 [affirmed in 129 Fed. 124, 63 C. C. A. 626]. 9. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Hall v. Bird, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,926, 6 Blatchf. 438, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 595; Taylor v. Wood, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,808, 1 Ban. & A. 270, 12 Blatchf. 110, 8 Off. Gaz. 90. 10. Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86. 11. Combination or aggregation as involv- ing invention see infra, III, E, 20, 21. New combinations as showing novelty of device see supra, III, B, 10. 12. Allen v. Grimes, 89 Fed. 869; Western Electric Co. v. Millheim Electric Tel. Co., 88 Fed. 505 ; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson County R. Co., 26 Fed. 411 ; Yale Lock Mfg. Co v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 6 Fed. 377, 19 Blatchf. 123; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Booth v. Parks, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,648, 1 Ban. & A. 225, 1 Flipp. 381 [affirmed in 102 U. S. 96, 26 L. ed. 54] ; In re Bough- ton, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,696, McArthur Pat. Cas. 278; Carr t\ Rice, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; Child v. Boston etc., Iron Works, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,675, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 606, Holmes 303, 5 Off. Gaz. 61; Christman v. Rumsey, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,704, 4 Ban. & A. 506, 17 Blatchf. 148, 17 Off. Gaz. 903; Crosby v. Lopouraille, 6 Fed. Cas, No. 3,424, Taney 374; Emigh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,448, 1 Biss. 400, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Forbush v. Cook, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,931, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 668; Forsyth v. Clapp, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,949, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528, Holmes 528, 4 Off. Gaz. 527; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,904, 7 Blatchf. 443 [affirmed in 20 Wall. 353, 22 L. ed. 241]; In re Halsey, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,963, McArthur Pat. Cas. 459; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Kero- sene Lamp Heater Co, v. Littell, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,724, 3 Ban. & A. -312, 13 Off. Gaz. 1009; Munson v. Gilbert, etc., Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,934, 3 Ban. & A. 595, 18 Off. Gaz. 194; Pennock v. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 2 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327]; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277; Tatham v. LeRoy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,761; In re Wagner, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 17,038, McArthur Pat.. Cas. 510; Willimantic Linen Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,763, 4 Ban. & A. 133; Winans v. Schenectady, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,865, 2 Blatchf. 279. And see infra, III, E, 20, b. A combination of all the elements but one will not anticipate. Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752 [reversed on other grounds in 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910] ; Watson v. Cunningham, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,280, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528. 13. Hubbell v. U. S., 179 U. S. 86, 21 S. Ct. 28, 45 L. ed. 100; Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 26 L. ed. 54; Stilwell-Bierce, etc., Co. v. Eufaula Cotton Oil Co., 117 Fed. 410, 54 C. C. A. 584; Brill v. Third Ave. R. Co., 103 Fed. 289; Gormully, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Cycle Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 279; Packard v. Lacing-Stud Co., 70 Fed. 66, 16 C. C. A. 639 ; American Automaton Weighing Mach. Co. v. Blauvelt, 50 Fed. 213; Ross v. Montana Union R. Co. v. 45 Fed. 424; Bell v. U. S. Stamping Co., 19 Fed. 312; Worswick Mfg. [HI, C, 4, i] 82 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS j. Non-Analogous Use. The fact that the same tiling in form is old in a non- analogons art where it is used to perform different functions will not constitute an anticipation or negative novelty. 14 k. Evidence (i) PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF. A patent is prima facie evidence that the patentee was the original and first inventor of the device patented, 15 and whoever controverts or denies his claim in this respect has the burden of proof upon him to establish the contrary. 16 This presumption of originality, in the absence of the application for the patent, extends -back only to the date of the patent, 17 and in no case does it extend further back than to the time of the filing of the original application. 18 "Where defendant has shown knowledge and use of the invention prior to the patent, the burden of proving a still prior invention is thrown on plaintiff. 19 (n) ADMISSIBILITT (A) In General. To overcome the prima fade pre- Co. v. Steiger, 17 Fed. 250; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Regulator Co. v. Copeland, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866, 2 Fish. Pat. Gas. 221; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,410, 2 Cliff. 637; Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,116, 1 Bond 259, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,270, 3 Biss. 66, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330; Watson v. Cunningham, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,280, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528. 14. In re Weiss, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; National Meter Co. v. Neptune Meter Co., 122 Fed. 75 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 563]; Durfee v. Bawo, 118 Fed. 853; Moore v. Schaw, 118 Fed, 602; Day- light Prism Co. v. Marcus Prism Co., 110 Fed. 980; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544.. And see supra, III, B, 8; infra, III, E, 15. Illustration. Panel of ceiling not antici- pated by bottom of bird cage or a tea-tray. Kinnear, etc., Co. v. Capital Sheet-Metal Co., 81 Fed. 491. 15. Donoughe v. Hubbard, 27 Fed. 742; Green v. French. 11 Fed. 591; Rogers t?. Beecher, 3 Fed. 639; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 137, 5 Sawy. 608; Crouch v. Speer, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438, 1 Ban. & A. 145, 6 Off. Gaz. 187; Doherty v. Haynes, 7 Fed. Cas, No. 3,963, 1 Ban. & A. 289, 4 Cliff. 291; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,575, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,410, 2 Cliff. 637; Knight v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Konold v. Klein, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,925, 3 Ban. & A. 226, 5 Reporter 427; McMillin v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62; Putnam v. Yerrington, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,486, 2 Ban. & A. 237, 9 Off. Gaz. 689; Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752; Rollhaus v. McPherson, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,026; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277; Serrell v. Collins, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,672, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 289; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. [Ill, C, 4, j] No. 12,948a; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mat- thiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Washburn i\ Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206, 3 Story 122. The extension of a patent resisted on the ground of want of novelty strengthens the presumption that the patentee was the original inventor. Cook v. Ernest, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,155, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396, 2 Off. Gaz. 89, 1 Woods 195. 16. Roberts v. Pittsburgh Wire Co., 69 Fed. 624 [affirmed in 71 Fed. 706, 18 C. C. A. 302] ; Roberts v. H. P. Nail Co., 53 Fed. 916; Cohansey Glass Mfg. Co. v. Wharton, 2& Fed. 189; Thayer v. .Spaulding, 27 Fed. 66; Duffy v. Reynolds, 24 Fed, 855; Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 20 Fed. 633, 22 Blatchf. 169; Green v. French, 11 Fed. 591; Shirley v. Sanderson, 8 Fed. 905; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 137, 5 Sawy. 608; Crouch v. Speer, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438, 1 Ban. & A. 145, 6 Off. Gaz. 187; Fisk v. Church, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,826, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 540, 1 Off. Gaz. 634; Hayden v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,261, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 86 [affirmed in 3 Wall. 315, 18 L. ed. 76] ; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,575, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Taylor v. Wood, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,808, 1 Ban. & A. 270, 12 Blatchf. 110, 8 Off, Gaz. 90; Wayne v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,303, 1 Bond 27, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 20. 17. Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Wing v. Richardson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,869, 2 Cliff. 449, 2 Fish. Pat, Cas. 535. 18. Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,410, 2 Cliff. 637; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440; Wing v. Richardson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,869, 2 Cliff. 449, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 535. 19. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,342, 4 Ban. & A. 88, 15 Blatchf. 446, 16 Off. Gaz. 675. In other words, when the patentee desires to show that his inven- tion was of a date prior to his original appli- cation he takes the burden upon himself, and must prove by competent and sufficient evi- PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 843 sumption of the validity of a patent, evidence is admissible to prove that the device was previously made and reduced to practice by another in this country ; ^ that it had been previously known to, and used by, others here before it was invented by the patentee; 21 or that it had been patented or described in some printed publication prior to the supposed invention by the patentee. 22 Evidence of an acknowledgment that the patentee was the original inventor is also admis- sible. 23 In rebuttal of evidence to show anticipation, it is competent, as bearing on the state of the art, to introduce the testimony of persons whose business and experience were adapted to bring to them a knowledge of all improvements therein to the effect that no such improvement as that covered by the patent in suit had previously come to their knowledge. 24 In determining whether one invention anticipates another, evidence may be, and in a difficult case ought to be, heard concerning the construction and actual operation of the devices respectively. 25 So too the jury may take into consideration the fact that the prior invention was known to persons who experimented to produce the subsequent invention but failed to do so. 26 (B) Application For Patent. Mere applications for patents cannot be con- sidered on the. question of novelty. To make the things described in them available, there must be evidence that such things were actually constructed in working form. 27 Rejected specifications and drawings may be received in evi- dence that lie made the invention at the period suggested, and that he reduced the same to practice in the form of an operative machine. Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Gas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; Wing v. Richard- son, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,869, 2 Cliff. 449, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 535., 20. Direct evidence of reduction to practice and use necessary. The reduction to practice and use of inventions claimed to be prior to the patent in suit, so as to invalidate such patent, must be shown by direct evi- dence of the construction and use of the machine or device. Howes v. McNeal, 4 Fed. 151, 17 Blatchf. 396. Nothing from the patent office can be admitted in evidence of earlier dates than the patent. All such evi- dence would be hearsay and secondary. Howes v. McNeal, supra. File wrappers of patents alleged to antici- pate are not competent as evidence to show the reduction to practice and use of the in- ventions therein claimed at a date prior to the invention of the patent in suit. Howes v. McNeal, 4 Fed. 151, 17 Blatchf. 396. 21. Evidence of prior use in a foreign coun- try is inadmissible where such prior use is not shown in a patent or printed publication. Hurlbut v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456, 9 S. Ct. 584, 32 L. ed. 1011. 22. The court must first construe the pat- ent offered in evidence, and if by its true con- struction it has a tendency to support the issue for which it is offered, it is admissible, but if it has no such tendency, it must be excluded. Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No, 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397. A certified copy of a patent afterward sur- rendered and canceled may be given in evi- dence to show that a device subsequently pat- ented is not original. Delano v. Scott, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,753, Gilp. 489, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 700. A certificate of the commissioner of pat- ents of a copy or translaton of a French volume in the patent office is inadmissible to prove the existence of an invention prior to the patent in suit, such evidence being merely hearsay. The production of the book itself or a duly sworn and proved transla- tion is the only way its contents can be shown. Gay lord v. Case, 5 Ohio Dec. (Re r print) 413, 5 Am. L. Rec. 494. A drawing exhibited in a mere trade cir- cular, unaccompanied by any evidence that it was ever actually published, or intended for general use, or accessible to the public, is not admissible as a printed publication for the purpose of showing an anticipation. Brit- ton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93. But drawings exhibited for the purpose of show- ing anticipation of a design patent are not rendered irrelevant by the fact that they are unaccompanied by a written description. This objection merely affects their weight as evidence and not their admissibility. Brit- ton v. White Mfg. Co., supra. 23. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68. 24. Hitchcock v. Shoninger Melodeon Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,537. 25. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. West- ern Electric Co., 72 Fed. 530, 19 C. C. A. 1. Evidence of impracticability of prior inven- tion. Evidence is admissible to show that the device set forth in the prior patent is inoperative, impracticable, and worthless. Harwood v. Mill River Woolen Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,187, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 526. 26. Many v. Jagger, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,055, 1 Blatchf. 372, Fish. Pat. Rep. 222. 27. Barker v. Stowe, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 994, 3 Ban. & A. 337, 15 Blatchf. 49, 14 Off. Gaz. 559. [Ill, C, 4, k, (n), (B)] 844 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS dence, however, after the invention is perfected, to ascertain the date of the invention, the design of the inventor, and the principal intended functions and mode of operation.^ And it lias been held that the defense of prior invention by, and patent to, a third person may be met by producing the application of, and the patent to, such third person, with his accompanying or contemporaneous declarations. 29 (in) WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. In order to defeat a patent on the ground of want of novelty, the proof of prior use or knowledge must be clear and con- vincing, 30 and sufficient to establish the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. 31 Antici- pation may be established by testimony entirely from recollection of the existence and use of a prior device, when the witnesses are numerous, disinterested, and unim peached, 32 but not where such testimony is indefinite and contradictory. 33 The bare recollection of one witness in regard to the peculiar construction of a piece of machinery, especially if the structure is one of complex character, is not ordinarily sufficient evidence to defeat a patent; 34 but it may be sufficient where the invention sought to be anticipated is of simple character. 85 Much less testi- A rejected application for a patent is not evidence that the thing described was ever used (Herring v. Nelson, 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6,424, 3 Ban. & A. 55, 14 Blatchf. 293 [re- versed on other grounds in 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. ed. 601] ; Howes v. McNeal, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,789, 3 Ban. & A. 376, 15 Blatchf. 103, 15 Off. Gaz. 608) ; nor is such a description a patent or a publication (Her- ring v. Nelson, supra; Northwestern Fire Ex- tinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extin- guisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 177, C Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227). 28. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 177, 6 Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227. 29. Hitchcock v. Shoninger Melodeon Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,537. 30. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154 [reversing 33 Fed. 261]; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Donoughe v. Hub- bard, 27 Fed. 742; Thayer v. Spaulding, 27 Fed. 66 (strong and convincing if not ab- solutely conclusive proof) ; Zane v. Peck, 9 Fed. 101 ; Woven-Wire Mattress Co. v. Wire- Web Bed Co., 8 Fed. 87; Rogers v. Beecher, 3 Fed. 639; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglas, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,948, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330; Taylor v. Wood, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,808, 1 Ban. & A. 270, 12 Blatchf. 110, 8 Off. Gaz. 90. 31. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154 [reversing 33 Fed. 261]; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 120, 21 L. ed. 821; Binns v. Zucker, etc., Chem- ical Co., 70 Fed. 711; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Co- hansey Glass Mfg. Co. v. Wharton, 28 Fed. 189; Wetherell v . Keith, 27 Fed. 364; Duffy v. Reynolds, 24 Fed. 855; Doubleday v. Beatty, 11 Fed. 729; Shirley v. Sanderson, 8 Fed. 905; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65; Campbell v. James, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,361, 4 Ban. & A. 456, 17 Blatchf. 42, 18 Off. Gaz. 979, 8 Re- fill, C, 4, k, (II), (B)] porter 455; Hawes v. Antisdel, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,234, 2 Ban. & A. 10, 8 Off. Gaz. 685; Konold v. Klein, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,925, 3 Ban. & A. 226, 5 Reporter 427; Tread- well v. Bladen, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,154, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 531, 4 Wash. 703, holding that proof of an article which might have been made by a machine similar to that for which plaintiff afterward obtained a patent is not sufficient to invalidate the patent. Evidence held sufficient to show prior knowl- edge and use. Simmond v. Morrison, 44 Fed. 757; Gibson v. Scribner, 22 Fed. 840; Doubleday v. Beatty, 11 Fed. 729; Parker 17. Ferguson, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,733, 1 Blatchf. 407, Fish. Pat. Rep. 260. Evidence held insufficient to show prior knowledge or use. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haberman Mfg. Co., 55 Fed. 292, 5 C. C. A. Ill [affirming 53 Fed. 375]; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Beacon Vacuum Pump, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 678; Smith v. Davis, 34 Fed. 783; Wetherell v. Keith, 27 Fed. 364; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 26 Fed. 104. Where the proof of prior knowledge or use is contradictory, mere preponderance is not sufficient to invalidate the patent. The pre- ponderance must be such as to remove all reasonable doubt. Hawes v. Antisdel, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,234, 2 Ban. & A. 10, 8 Off. Gaz. 685. 32. American Roll-Paper Co. r. Weston, 59 Fed. 147, 8 C. C. A. 56. 33. Untermeyer r. Freund, 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183; Shirley v. Sanderson, 8 Fed. 905; Hawes v. Antisdel, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,234, 2 Ban. & A. 10, 8 Off. Gaz. 685. 34. Mack v. Spencer Optical Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 819; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117; Smith t;. Davis, 34 Fed. 783 ; Woven-Wire Mattress Co. r. Wire- Web Bed Co., 8 Fed. 87; Blake v. Eagle Works Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,494, 3 Biss. 77, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 591 ; Blake v. Rawson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,499, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 74, Holmes 200, 3 Off. Gaz. 122. 35. Lee r. Upson, etc., Co., 43 Fed. 670; Riley v. Daniels, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,837. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 845 mony is sufficient to prove that a very simple invention had been anticipated than is necessary to prove the anticipation of a complex machine. 36 D. Utility 87 1. IN GENERAL. To warrant the allowance of a patent it must be capable of some beneficial use, in contradistinction to what is pernicious, frivolous, or worthless. 38 An invention will be deemed useful when it will operate to perform the functions and secure the result intended, and its use is not con- trary to public health or morals. 39 While utility is essential, any utility, however slight, will be sufficient. 40 It is not essential that the invention should be the best 36. National Casket Co., v. Stolts, 157 Fed. 392; Lee v. Upson, etc., Co., 43 Fed. 670; Riley v. Daniels, 20 F. Nichols, 13 Fed. 125, 8 Sawy. 201; Tyler v. Crane, 7 Fed. 775; Coleman v. Liesor, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Simpson i\ Mad River R. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,885, 6 McLean 603; Smith v. Glen- dale Elastic Fabrics Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,050, 1 Ban. & A. 58, Holmes 340, 5 Off. Gaz. 429; Smith v. Prior, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,095, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 469, 2 Sawy. 461, 4 Off. Gaz. 633; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,270, 3 Biss. 66, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330; Vance v. Campbell, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,837, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 483: Whitney r. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,594, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207 [reversed on other grounds in 14 Wall. 620, 20 L. ed. 860]. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 847 is fair to presume that the person using an invention would not do so if he thought it of no utility, 53 and he is estopped to deny that it possesses utility. 54 E. Invention 1. NECESSITY. The subject-matter of patents must be of such a character as to have called for an exercise of the inventive or creative faculties of the mind K as distinguished from the mere exercise of the knowledge and judgment expected of those skilled in the particular art, 56 although the right to a patent does not depend upon the quantity of thought, ingenuity, skill, labor, or experiment which was bestowed upon the production. 57 2. NATURE. While attempts have been made to define invention, 58 the courts arid text writers have found it impossible to so define it as to furnish a test for determining whether a particular act or discovery called for an exercise of the inventive faculties. 59 It is a matter resting in judgment and therefore no fixed rule for its determination is possible. Certain controlling principles are, however, settled and assist in reaching the proper conclusion in particular cases. Thus it is declared that an act of invention is primarily mental and involves the conception or mental construction of a means not previously known for accomplishing a use- ful result. 60 It is not the mere adaptation of old means by common reasoning, The fact that the patented article has superseded all others before in use, and that the party charged with infringing has adopted it in the place of those before made and sold by him, constitutes strong evidence of usefulness. Smith v. Prior, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,095, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 469, 2 Sawy. 461, 4 Off. Gaz. 633. 53. Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984. 54. Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Vance v. Campbell, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,837, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 483. 55. In re Schraubstadter, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 331; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Green- leaf, 117 U. S. 554, 6 S. Ct. 846, 29 L. ed, 952; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1042, 29 L. ed. 76; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 28 Fed. 185; Patterson v. Gaslight, etc., Co., 2 Ch. D. 812, 45 L. J. Ch. 843, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 11; Pirrie v. York St. Flax Spinning Co., [1894] 1 lr. 417; Nicoll v. Swears, 69 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110; Kemp v. Chown, 7 Can. Exch. 306; Yates v. Great Western R. Co., 2 Ont. App. 226; Waterous v. Bishop, 20 U. C. C. P. 29. If there is an invention to any extent it is sufficient. Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, McAllister 48. 56. Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112, 26 L. ed. 93; Muller v. Ellison, 27 Fed. 456; Arnold v. Pettee, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56 Ib. New result indicates invention. Canning- ton v. Nuttall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205, 40 L. J. Ch. 739; Curtis v. Platt, L. R. 1 H. L. 337, 35 L. J. Ch. 852; Proctor v. Bennis, 36 Ch. D. 740, 57 L. J. Ch. 11, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 662, 36 Wkly. Rep. 456 ; Thompson v. Moore, L. R. 23 Ir. 599. 57. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss, 65 ; Hoe v. Cottrell, 1 Fed. 597, 17 Blatchf. 546; Carr v. Rice, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Co. v. Copeland, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Jones 17. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglas, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,948, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330; Middleton Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Potter v. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,330, . 4 Blatchf. 238, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382. 58. Invention is that intuitive faculty of the mind put forth in the search of new results or new methods creating what had not before existed or bringing to light what had been hidden from visions. Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. ed, 901. The finding out, the contriving, the creating of something which did not exist, and was not known before, and which can be made useful and advantageous in the pursuits of life or which can add to the enjoyment of mankind. Leidersdorf v. Flint, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,219, 8 Biss. 327, 6 Reporter 739. 59. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Hanifen v. Armi- tage, 117 Fed. 845. Judicial minds may reach different conclu- sions in simple cases. Beer v. Waldridge, 100 Fed. 465, 40 C. C. A. 496. 60. Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Davis v. Fredericks, 99 Fed. 69, 21 Blatchf. 556; Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 53, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Conovcr v. Roach, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,125, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252. And see infra, IV, A, 10. To constitute invention there must be a definite idea of the complete operative means. Must leave no essential for subsequent con- ception. Wheaton v. Kendall, 85 Fed. 666. Mental doubt. A patentable invention is a mental result. The machine process or product is but its material reflex and embodi- ment. Smith I?. Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 118, 22 L. ed. 566. The date of invention is the date of the mental conception. Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,030, 1 Fish. Pat. [Ill, E, 2] 84:8 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS but is the construction of new means through an exercise of the creative faculties of the mind. 61 3. INVENTION AND DISCOVERY SYNONYMOUS. There is no distinction in patent law between invention and discovery. 62 The discovery of a new substance or element of nature or a new principle or force is not paten table, but the invention or discovery of a new means for making them practically useful may be. 63 4. PRIOR ART CONSIDERED. In determining whether there was invention in a particular case everything previously known in the art through patents, publica- tions, or use must be taken into consideration, 64 since the patentee is in law presumed to have known of everything in the prior art. 65 5. NOVELTY AND SUPERIORITY NOT INVENTION. A party has not necessarily made an invention merely because he has done what no one had done before. Mere novelty and utility are not enough to sustain a patent, since there must also be invention. 66 He must do something which the ordinary person skilled in the art Gas. 108. See also U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 61. Matter of Gould, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 410; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 81, 37 L. ed. 1059; Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Cleveland Faucet Co. v. Vulcan Brass Co., 72 Fed. 505; Muller v. Ellison, 27 Fed. 456; Woodman v. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 98 [reversed on other grounds in 10 Wall. 117, 19 L. ed. 866]. Result. Invention may reside more in the result than in the changes of structure. Stewart v. Mahony, 5 Fed. 302; Treadwell v. Fox, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,156. Tapering um- brella stick is patentable. Rose v. Hirsch, 77 Fed. 469, 23 C. C. A. 246 [reversing 71 Fed. 881]. Placing hand-holds on book-shelves is not invention. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. 831. Mere directions how to use a tool skilfully is not invention. Walker v. Rawson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,083, 4 Ban. & A. 128. Changing sequence of operation is not in- vention. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury, 70 Fed. 240, 17 C. C. A. 84 [affirming 58 Fed. 566]. Putting old article in convenient receptacle is not invention. Hurd v. Snow, 35 Fed. 423. Making parts match or fit each other is not invention. Delvin v. Heise, 43 Fed. 795 [af- firmed in 159 U. S. 251, 15 S. Ct. 1038, 40 L. ed. 138]. Placing sheets of fly paper face to face is not invention. Andrews v. Thum, 67 Fed. 911, 15 C. C. A. 67 [reversing 53 Fed. 84]. For other cases illustrative of lack of in- vention see Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. ed. 989; Patent Clothing Co. v. Glover, 141 U. S. 560, 12 S. Ct. 79, 35 L. ed. 858; McClain v. Ort- mayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Clark Pomace-Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 119 U. S. 335, 7 S. Ct. 382, 30 L. ed. 406; Estey v. Burdett, 109 U. S. 633, 3 S. Ct. 531, 27 L. ed. 1058; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. t?. Cooke, etc., Co., 73 Fed. 684; New York v. American Cable R. Co., 70 Fed. 853, 17 C. C. A. 467 [reversing 56 Fed. 149, 68 Fed. 227]; Covert v. Travers Co., 70 Fed. 788; [HI. E, 2] Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. 17. Weeks, 61 Fed. 405, 9 C. C. A. 555 [affirming 52 Fed. 816] ; Butte City St. R. Co. v. Pacific Cable R. Co., 60 Fed. 410, 9 C. C. A. 41 [reversing 55 Fed. 760]; Green v. Lynn, 55 Fed. 516; National Surface Guard Co. v. Merrill, 49 Fed. 157, 1 C. C. A. 214; Root v. Sontag, 47 Fed. 309; Davis v. Parkman, 45 Fed. 69 [affirmed in 71 Fed. 961, 18 C. C. A. 398] ; Williams Mfg. Co. v. Franklin, 41 Fed. 393; Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. 458; Celluloid Mfg. Co. f. Zylonite Novelty Co., 30 Fed, 62. In re Kemper, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,687, Cranch Pat. Dec. 89, McArthur Pat. Cas. 1. 63. See supra, II, A, 5. 64. Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. 423, 11 S. Ct. 150, 34 L. ed. 719 [affirm- ing 28 Fed. 575] ; Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,919, 1 Blatchf. 542, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep, 391. 65. Millett v. Allen, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 70; Derby v. Thompson, 146 U. S. 476, 13 S. Ct. 181, 36 L. ed. 1051; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275; Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 454, 4 L. ed. 433; Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 909; Fry v. Rookwood Pot- tery Co., 90 Fed. 494; Stearns v. Russell, 85 Fed. 218, 29 C. C. A. 121; Crompton t\. Knowles, 7 Fed. 199; Dawson v. Follen, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,670, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 9, 2 Wash. 311; Hovey v. Henry, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,742; Larabee v. Cortlan, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,084, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 5, Taney 180; Roemer v. Simon, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,997, 1 Ban. & A. 138, 5 Off. Gaz. 555; Spain v. Gamble, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,199, McArthur Pat. Cas. 358. 66. In re Cotton, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 17; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 6 S. Ct. 846, 29 L. ed. 952 ; Thomp- son v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1042, 29 L. ed. 76; Milligan, etc., Glue Co. v. Up- ton, 97 U. S. 3, 24 L. ed. 985 ; Wills v. Scran- ton Cold Storage Co., 147 Fed. 525 [affirmed in 153 Fed. 181] ; Dunbar v. Eastern Ele- vating Co., 81 Fed. 201, 26 C. C. A. 330; Baldwin v. Haynes, 28 Fed. 99 ; May v. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Perry v. Co- operative Foundry Co., 12 Fed. 436, 20 Blatchf. 498. See also Wisner v. Grant, T Fed. 485. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 849 would not know how to do if the occasion for it arose. 67 He has not made an invention merely because he was the first to see the occasion or appreciate the advisability of doing the thing, 68 or because lie has done it better. An article is not paten table merely because it is better, cheaper, or more merchantable, 69 although novelty combined with superiority may show invention. 70 6. SIMPLICITY DOES NOT NEGATIVE. Simplicity of the means employed does not show that there was no exercise of the inventive faculty in devising it, 71 but on the contrary the highest order of inventive genius may have been required to per- ceive that such simple means might be used to accomplish the desired result. 72 7. COMPLEXITY NOT PROOF OF INVENTION. Mere multiplicity of elements in the means employed does not show that invention was required to devise it. 73 Mul- tiplicity of elements may go on indefinitely without making invention. 74 8. MECHANICAL SKILL. Where the ordinary person skilled in the particular art advised of the end to be accomplished would spontaneously think of or pro- duce the means for accomplishing it, the production of the means involves mere mechanical skill and not invention. 75 The design of the patent laws is to reward Utility may help to determine the question of invention, increased efficiency being ac- cepted as an important factor. American Caramel Co. v. Mills, 149 Fed. 743, 79 C. C. A. 449. 67. Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. ed. 901; Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Johnson Co. v. Tidewatsr Steel Works, 56 Fed. 43, 5 C. C. A. 412 [affirming 50 Fed. 90]; Welling v. Crane, 14 Fed. 571; Barry v. Gugenheim, 2 Fed. Gas. No. 1,061, 5 Fish. Pat. Gas. 452, 1 Off. Gaz. 382 ; Carter v. Mes- singer, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,478, 11 Blatchf. 34 ; Smith v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,048, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543, 2 Off. Gaz. 175. And see supra, III, E, 1 ; infra,, III, E, 8. Every shadow of a shade of an idea is not patentable. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 2 S. Ct. 225, 27 L. ed. 438. 68. Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. ed. 901; Couse v. Johnson, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,288, 4 Ban. & A. 501, 16 Off. Gaz. 719. 69. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. (U. S.) 248, 13 L. ed. 683; Greist Mfg. Co. v. Parsons, 125 Fed. 116, 60 C. C. A. 34; Peters v. Union Biscuit Co., 120 Fed. 679 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 601, 60 C. C. A. 337] ; Shoe t?. Gimbel, 96 Fed. 96; Birmingham Cement Mfg. Co. v. Gates Iron Works, 78 Fed. 350, 24 C. C. A. 132; Schwarzwaelder v. Detroit, 77 Fed. 886; An- drews v. Thum, 67 Fed. 911, 15 C. C. A. 67; Smith v. Nichols, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,084, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 61, Holmes 172, 2 Off. Gaz. 649 [affirmed in 21 Wall. 112, 22 L. ed. 566] ; Yearsley t\ Brookfield, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, McArthur Pat. Cas. 193. 70. Ballard v. McCluskey, 58 Fed. 880. 71. United Shirt, etc., Co. v. Beattie, 149 Fed. 736, 79 C. C. A. 442 [affirming 138 Fed. 136] ; Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 75 Fed. 668; Ross v. Montana Union R. Co., 45 Fed. 424; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240; Many v. Sizer, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,056, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 17; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, McAllister 48; Yates v. Great West- [54] ern R. Co., 24 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 495; Sumner v. Abell, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 532; Powell v. Begley, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 381. 72. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177; Gindorff v. Deer- ing, 81 Fed. 952; King v. Hammond, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,797, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 488; Ryan v. Goodwin, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,186, 1 Robb- Pat. Cas. 725, 3 Sumn. 514. 73. See infra, III, E, 21, b. 74. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 991, 159- U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225. 75. In re Volkmann, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 441; In re Hayes, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 393; In re Baker, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 363; Black Diamond Coal-Min. Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 156 U. S. 611, 15 S. Ct. 482, 39 L. ed. 553; Giles v. Heysinger, 150 U. S. 627, 14 S. Ct. 211, 37 L. ed. 1204; Knapp i\ Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 81, 37 L. ed. 1059; French v. Carter, 137 U. S. 239, 11 S. Ct. 90, 34 L. ed. 664 ; Shenfield v. Nasha- wannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U. S. 56, 11 S. Ct. 5, 34 L. ed. 573 ; Royer v. Roth, 132 U. S. 201, 10 S. Ct. 58, 33 L. ed. 322; Aron v. Man- hattan R. Co., 132 U. S. 84, 10 S. Ct. 24, 33 L. ed. 272; Clark Pomace-Holder Co. v. Fer- guson, 119 U. S. 335, 7 S. Ct. 382, 30 L. ed. 406; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 6 S. Ct. 846, 29 L. ed. 952 ; Hollis- ter v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 5 S. Ct. 717, 28 L. ed. 901; Morris v. Mc- Millin, 112 U. S. 244, 5 S. Ct. 218, 28 L. ed. 702; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L. ed. 532; Slawson V. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 107 U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 576; Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 2 S. Ct. 225, 27 L. ed. 438 ; Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34 ; Smyth Mfg. " Co. 1?. Sheridan, 149 Fed. 208, 79 C. C. A. 166; Gates Iron Works v. Overland Gold Min. Co., 147 Fed. 700, 78 C. C. A. 88 ; Felt, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mechanical Accountant Co., 129 Fed. 386; U. S. Peg- Wood, etc., Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 125 Fed. 378, 60 C. C. A. 244; Stanley Rule, etc., Co. v. Ohio Tool Co., 115 Fed. 813 [affirmed in 125 Fed. 947, 60 C. C. A. 185] ; National Hollow Brake- [HI, E, 8] 850 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowl- edge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. It was never their object to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to awy skilled mechanic or opera- tor in the ordinary progress of manufacture. 76 Mere mechanical skill can never rise to the sphere of invention. The latter involves higher thought and brings into activity a different faculty. Their domains are distinct. The line which separates them is sometimes difficult to trace ; nevertheless, in the eye of the law, it always subsists. 77 9. SUPERIOR FINISH OR FORM NOT INVENTION. It is well settled that an article of manufacture is not patentable because means have been devised for making it more perfectly than before. 78 It must be new in itself and not merely in Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 99 Fed. 758; Yale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 97 Fed. 106; Davey Pegging-Mach. Co. v. Prouty, 96 Fed. 336; Ingraham Co. v. E. N. Welch Mfg. Co., 92 Fed. 1019, 35 C. C. A. 163; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Union R. Co., 87 Fed. 879; Tiemann v. Kraatz, 85 Fed. 437, 29 C. C. A. 257; Gormully, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Western Wheel Works, 84 Fed. 968, 28 C. C. A. 586 ; National Harrow Co. v. Wescott, 84 Fed. 671; Buck v. Timony, 78 Fed. 487; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Stecher Lith. Co., 77 Fed. 828; Clune v. Madden, 77 Fed. 205; Schreiber, etc., Co. v. Grimm, 72 Fed. 671, 19 C. C. A. 67; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury, 70 Fed. 240, 17 C. C. A. 84; Smith v. Macbeth, 67 Fed. 137, 14 C. C. A. 241; Westinghouse v. Edison Electric Light Co., 63 Fed. 588, 11 C. C. A. 342; Johnson Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 62 Fed. 156 ; Merritt v. Middleton, 61 Fed. 680, 10 C. C. A. 10; Northrop v. Keighley, 48 Fed. 455 ; Davis v. Parkman, 45 Fed. 693 [affirmed in 71 Fed. 961, 18 C. C. A. 398] ; Facer v. Midvale Steel- Work Co., 38 Fed. 231; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 6 Fed. 377, 19 Blatchf. 123; Perfection Window Cleaner Co. v. Bosley, 2 Fed. 574, 9 Biss. 385; Belt v. Crittenden, 2 Fed. 82, 1 McCrary 209 ; Barry v. Gugenheim, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,061, 5 Fish. Pat. Gas. 452, 1 Off. Gaz. 382; Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609; Flood v. Hicks, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,877, 2 Biss. 169, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 156; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, McAllister 48; Saxby v. Gloucester Waggon Co., 7 Q. B. D. 305, 50 L. J. Q. B. 577 [affirmed in 75 L. T. J. 167]. Although study, effort, and experience were required for the production of the patented device, there is no invention if only mechani- cal skill was required. Butler v. Steckel, 27 Fed. 219. An obvious mechanical expedient is not pat- entable. Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 103 Fed. 489. Merely broadening the flange of a mail bag and increasing the number of rivets used in attaching it to the bag require no invention. Thompson v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cl. 61. A tapering shaft and cylindrical bearing being old in stone crushers, the desirability and practicability of producing a continuous line of contact in the bearing is obvious, and [III, E. 8] involves no invention. Fraser v. Gates Iron Works, 85 Fed. 441, 29 C. C. A. 261. Mechanical skill in making clothing illus- trated see Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., 93 Fed. 809; Way v. McClarin, 91 Fed. 663; Fay v. Duell, 90 Off. Gaz. 1157; Ypsilanti Dress Stay Mfg. Co. v. Van Valkenburg, 76 Off. Gaz. 333; Dalby v. Lynes, 71 Off. Gaz. 1317; Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 53 Off. Gaz. 1093. The true test of invention is not whether an ordinary mechanic can make the combina- tion, if it is suggested, but whether he would make the combination without suggestion, by means of his ordinary knowledge. Woodman v. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98. 76. Atlantic Works t\ Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200, 2 S. Ct. 225, 27 L. ed. 438, in which it was further said : " Such an indis- criminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented mo- nopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, with- out contributing anything to the real advance- ment of the arts." 77. Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, -3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609. 78. In re Draper, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 545; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 15 S. Ct. 745, 39 L. ed. 899 ; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 10 S. Ct. 394, 33 L. ed. 647; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. ed. 749; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 112, 22 L. ed. 566; Harder v. U. S. Steel Piling Co., 149 Fed. 434; Baker v. Duncombe Mfg. Co., 146 Fed. 744, 77 C. C. A. 234; Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co., 119 Fed. 594 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 691, 62 C. C. A. 447] ; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Stecher Lith. Co., 81 Fed. 395, 26 C. C. A. 448 ; Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. 783; Aiken ?. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197; Arnold v. Pettee, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 5616; In re Fultz, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,156, McArthur Pat. Cas. 178; Isaacs v. Abrams, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,095, 3 Ban. & A. 616, 14 Off. Gaz. 861; Meyer v. Pritch- ard, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,517, 1 Ban. & A. 261, 12 Blatchf. 101, 7 Off. Gaz. 1012; Wooster v. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 851 workmanship. 79 A machine-made article is not patentable over one which is hand- made or rough. 80 10. DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE NOT PATENTABLE. A difference in degree is a mere carrying forward of new or more extended application by one person of the origi- nal thought of another. 81 And a change in an existing means which produces nothing save a difference in degree is not patentable. 82 Calhoun, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,035, 11 Blatchf. 215, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 514; Huntington v. Lutz, 13 U. C. C. P. 168. And see supra. Ill, B, 9. Obtaining a more attractive exterior, or securing a more salable article, does not prove originality of conception. In re Hoey, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 416. 79. McDonald v. McLean, 38 Fed. 328, 13 Sawy. 635 ; Holly v. Vergennes Mach. Co., 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327; Smith v. Elliott, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,041, 9 Blatchf. 400, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 315, 1 Off. Gaz. 331. Skilful manipulation does not make inven- tion. Blakesley Novelty Co. v. Connecticut Web Co., 78 Fed. 480. ' 80. Boyd 17. Janesville Hay-Tool Co., 37 Fed. 887 ; U. S. Bung Mfg. Co. v. Independent Bung, etc., Co., 31 Fed. 76, 24 Blatchf. 406; MacKay i\ Jackman, 12 Fed. 615, 20 Blatchf. 466; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Draper v. Hudson, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,069, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327, Holmes 208, 3 Off. Gaz. 354; Miller's Falls Co. v. Backus, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,598, 5 Ban. & A. 53, 17 Off. Gaz. 852; In re Nutting, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,385, McArthur Pat. Cas. 455; Wooster v. Calhoun, 30 Fed. as. No. 18,035, 11 Blatchf. 215, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 514. Comminuted glue is not patentable over glue in flakes. Milligan, etc., Glue Co. v. Upton, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,607, 1 Ban. & A. 497, 4 Cliff. 237, 6 Off. Gaz. 837 [affirmed in 97 U. S. 3, 24 L. ed. 985]. 81. In re Klemm, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; In re Iwan, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 566; Voightmann v. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 133 Fed. 298 [affirmed in 148 Fed. 848] ; Galvin v. Grand Rapids, 115 Fed. 511, 53 C. C. A. 165; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works, 101 Fed. 584; Soehner v. Favorite Stove, etc., Co., 84 Fed. 182, 28 C. C. A. 317; Troy Laundry Mach. Co. v. Ap Rees, 67 Fed. 336, 14 C. C. A. 405; Hill v. Houghton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,493, 1 Ban. & A. 291, 6 Off. Gaz. 3; Smith v. Nichols, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,084, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 61, Holmes 172, 2 Off. Gaz. 649 [affirmed in 21 Wall. 112, 22 L. ed. 566]. Mere superiority of device does not prove invention. Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752 [reversed on other grounds in 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910]. 82. In re Beswick, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 345; American Road-Mach. Co. v. Pennock, etc., Co., 164 U. S. 26, 17 S. Ct. 1, 41 L. ed, 337; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 S. Ct. 1, 39 L. ed. 6.4; Ansonia Brass, etc., Co, v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 11, 12 S. Ct. 601, 36 L. ed. 327; International Tooth-Crown Co. V. Gaylord, 140 U. S. 55, 11 S. Ct. 716, 35 L. ed. 347; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 10 S. Ct. 394, 33 L. ed. 647; Guidet v. Brooklyn, 105 U. S. 550, 26 L. ed. 1106; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. .S.) 112, 22 L. ed. 566; Eames v. Worcester Poly- technic Inst., 123 Fed. 67, 60 C. C. A. 37; Johnston v. Woodbury, 96 Fed. 421; Lappin Brake-Shoe Co. v. Corning Brake-Shoe Co., 94 Fed. 162 [affirmed in 99 Fed. 1004, 40 C. C. A. 215]; Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., 93 F'ed. 809; Solvay Process Co. v. Michigan Alkali Co., 90 Fed. 818, 33 C. C. A. 285; Talbot v. Fear, 89 Fed. 197, 32 C. C. A. 186; Gibbon v. Loewer Sole-Rounder Co., 79 Fed. 325, 24 C. C. A. 612; Eastman Co. v. Getz, 77 Fed. 412; Ferris v. Batcheller, 70 Fed. 714; Caverly v. Deere, 66 Fed. 305, 13 C. C. A. 452 [affirming 52 Fed. 758] ; Ameri- can Roll-Paper Co. v. Weston, 59 Fed. 147, 8 C. C. A. 56; Steiner Fire-Extinguisher Co. v. Adrian, 59 Fed. 132, 8 C. C. A. 44 [affirm- ing 52 Fed. 731]; Curtis v. Overman Wheel Co., 58 Fed. 784, 7 C. C. A. 493 [reversing 53 Fed. 247]; D. E. Jones Co. v. Munger Improved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co., 49 led. 61; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 47 Fed. 725; Spill v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 631, 22 Blatchf. 441; Theberath v. Rubber, etc., Harness Trimming Co., 15 Fed. 246; Sawyer v. Miller, 12 Fed. 725, 4 Woods 472; Perry v. Co-operative Foundry Co., 12 Fed. 149, 20 Blatchf. 505; Beatty v. Hodges, 8 Fed. 610, 19 Blatchf. 381; Dane v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,557, 3 Biss. 380, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130, 2 Off. Gaz. 677; Park- hurst v. Kinsman, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,757, 1 Blatchf. 488, Fish. Pat. Rep. 161, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 146; Tatliam v. Le Roy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,760, 2 Blatchf. 474; Thomson v. U. S., 27 Ct. 01. 61. Mere enlarging and strengthening is not invention. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939. A change in size or proportions is not in- vention. Day v. Bankers' etc., Tel. Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,672, 9 Blatchf. 345, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268, 1 Off. Gaz. 551. Increasing weight of hand-wheel is not in- vention. American Road-Mach. Co. v. Pen- nock, etc., Co., 164 U. S. 26, 17 S. Ct. 1, 41 L. ed. 337. Use of pure chemicals in place of impure is not invention. Buckan v. McKesson, 7 Fed. 100, 18 Blatchf. 485. Change in strength of solution used is not invention. Spill v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 631, 22 Blatchf. 441 [affirmed in 140 U. S. 698, 11 S. Ct. 1028, 35 L. ed. 593]. Merely extending valve rod for convenience is not invention. Crosby Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Ashton Valve Co., 94 Fed. 516, 36 C. C. A. 335. [Ill, E, 10] 852 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS 11. DUPLICATION OF PARTS. 83 A mere duplication of parts is not patentable j 84 but, where one so modifies the other as to produce a new result and not the mere added results of the two, there may be patentability. 85 12. DOUBLE USE. Double use is the use of an old means for a new but analo- gous purpose and is not patentable. 86 The application of an old process or 83. Duplication or combination of parts as infringement see infra, XIII, A, 6, i. 84. In re Volkmann, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 441; In re Klemm, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; MeBerty v. Cook, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 133; Maier t?. Bloom, 95 Fed. 159; Interior Lumber Co. v. Perkins, 80 Fed. 528, 25 C. C. A. 613; Shaw Electric Crane Co. v. Worthington, 77 Fed. 992; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Globe Co., 77 Fed. 465, 23 C. C. A. 242; New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. 469, 19 C. C. A. 534; Troy Laundry Mach. Co. v. Ap Rees, 67 Fed. 337, 14 C. C. A. 405 ; Thomson v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cl. 61; In re Scott, 117 Off. Gaz. 278. Putting additional pane of glass in fare box is not invention. Slawson v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 107 U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 576. The insertion of an additional gear and pinion wheel in a train of such wheels ar- ranged to transmit motion is not invention. In re Volkmann, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 441. Putting several articles in one package is not patentable. King v. Frostel, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,794, 4 Ban. & A. 236, 8 Biss. 510, 8 Reporter 490, 16 Off. Gaz. 956 [affirmed in 109 U. S. 99, 3 S. Ct. 85, 27 L. ed. 870]. Making screen in three parts instead of two is not invention. Ferguson v. Ed. Roos Mfg. Co., 71 Fed. 416, 18 C. C. A. 162. Connecting the shafts of two mills is not invention. Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. v. Barnard, 43 Fed. 527 [affirmed in 156 U. S. 261, 15 S. Ct. 333, 39 L. ed. 417]. Insertion of an additional gear and pinion wheel in a train of such wheels arranged to transmit motion is not invention. New De- parture Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. 469, 19 C. C. A. 534. 85. Goss Printing-Press Co. v. Scott, 108 Fed. 253, 47 C. C. A. 302; Gindorff v. Deer- ing, 81 Fed. 952; Brush Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Light Co., 40 Fed. 826; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10^740, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 44. 86. In re McNeil, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 461; In re Welch, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 362; In re Klemm, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; In re Bedford, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 376; Mast . Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 20 S. Ct. 708, 44 L. ed. 856 ; Market St. Cable R. Co. v. Rowley, 155 U. S. 621, 15 S. Ct. 224, 39 L. ed. 284, 70 Off. Gaz. 632; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 13 S. Ct. 902, 37 L. ed. 737, 63 Off. Gaz. 1201; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U. S. 623, 13 S. Ct. 472, 37 L. ed. 307, 62 Off. Gaz. 1821 ; Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. 423, 11 S. Ct. 150, 34 L. ed. 719, 53 Off. Gaz. 2044; Fond du Lac County v. May, 137 U. S. 395, II S. Ct. 98, 34 L. ed. 714; St. Germain V. Brunswick, 135 U. S. 227, 10 S. Ct. 822, [III. E. 11] 34 L. ed. 122, 51 Off. Gaz. 1129; Howe Mach. Co. v. National Needle Co., 134 U. S. 388, 10 S. Ct. 570, 33 L. ed. 963, 31 Off. Gaz. 475; Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195, 10 S. Ct. 65, 33 L. ed. 332, 49 Off. Gaz. 1841; Day i?. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 132 U. S. 98, 10 S. Ct. 11, 33 L. ed. 265, 49 Off. Gaz. 1364; Peters v. Hanson, 129 U. S. 541, 9 S. Ct. 393, 32 L. ed. 742, 47 Off. Gaz. 945; Crescent Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, 128 U. S. 158, 9 S. Ct. 83, 32 L. ed. 390, 45 Off. Gaz. 944; Holland v. Shipley, 127 U. S. 396, 8 S. Ct. 1089, 32 L. ed. 185; Dreyfus v. Searle, 124 U. S. 60, 8 S. Ct. 390, 31 L. ed. 352; Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679, 5 S. Ct. 692, 28 L. ed. 1070; Morris v. McMillin, 112 U. S. 244, 5 S. Ct. 218, 28 L. ed. 702; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 220, 28 L. ed. 222, 27 Off. Gaz. 207; Vinton v. Hamilton, 104 U. S. 485, 26 L. ed. 807; Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, 23 L. ed. 267; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Tucker 17. Spalding, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 20 L. ed. 515; Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co, 146 Fed. 744, 77 C. C. A. 234; Voight- mann v. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 133 Fed. 298 [affirmed in 148 Fed. 848] ; Antisdel v. Bent, 122 Fed. 811; Indiana Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Chair Co., 103 Fed. 496, 43 C. C. A. 287; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 98 Fed. 105; Chatillon v. Forschner, 96 Fed. 342; Thom- son-Houston Electric Co. v. Rahway Elec- tric Light, etc., Co, 95 Fed. 660; Briggs 0. Duell, 93 Fed. 972, 36 C. C. A. 38; Gaitley v. Greene, 92 Fed. 367; Falk Mfg. Co. v. Missouri R. Co, 91 Fed. 155; Solvay Proc- ess Co. v. Michigan Alkali Co., 90 Fed. 818, 33 C. C. A. 285; Clisby v. Reese, 88 Fed. 645, 32 C. C. A. 80; Capital Sheet-Metal Co. v. Kinnear, etc, Co., 87 Fed. 333, 31 C. C. A. 3; Safeguard Account Co. v. Wellington, 86 Fed. 146 ; Bannerman v. Sanf ord, 85 Fed. 448 ; Paul Boynton Co. v. Morris Chute Co, 82 Fed. 440; Interior Lumber Co. v. Perkins, 80 Fed. 528, 25 C. C. A. 613 [revising 51 Fed. 286] ; Shaw Electric Crane Co. v. Worthington, 77 Fed. 992; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Globe Co, 77 Fed. 465, 23 C. C. A. 242 [affirming 65 Fed. 599]; Potts v. Creager, 77 Fed. 434; Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co, 77 Fed. 432, 23 C. C. A. 223; Eastman Co. v. Getz, 77 Fed. 412; New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co, 73 Fed. 469, 19 C. C. A. 534; Inman Mfg. Co. i;. Beach, 71 Fed. 420, 18 C. C. A. 165, 74 Off. Gaz. 379; Cod- man v. Amia, 70 Fed. 710 [affirmed in 74 Fed. 634, 20 C. C. A. 566] ; Thomson Meter Co. v. National Meter Co, 65 Fed. 427, 12 C. C. A. 671, 70 Off. Gaz. 925; Steiner Fire- Extinguisher Co. v. Adrian, 59 Fed. 1*2, 8 C. C. A. 44; Forgie v. Oil-Well Supply PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 853 machine to a similar or analogous subject with no change in the manner of applj- 57 Fed. 742 [affirmed in 58 Fed. 871, 7 C. C. A. 551]; Zinsser v. Krueger, 48 Fed. 296, 1 C. C. A. 73 [affirming 45 Fed. 572]; Whitcomb v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652; Simmond v. Morrison, 44 Fed. 757; Grinnell v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 43 Fed. 590; McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 43 Fed. 384; Smith v. Partridge, 42 Fed. 57; Royer 47. Schultz Belting Co., 40 Fed. 160 [follow- ing Royer v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 853] ; Hale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Woven Wire Mattress Co., 36 Fed. 762; Mann's Boudoir Car Co. v- Monarch Parlor Sleeping Car Co., 34 Fed. 130; Byerly v. Cleveland Linseed Oil Works, 31 Fed. 73; Scheidler v. Tustin, 23 Fed. 887; Royer v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 853; Clark Pomace-Holder Co. v. Fer- guson, 17 Fed. 79, 21 Blatchf. 376; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. American Grape Sugar Co., 10 Fed. 835, 20 Blatchf. 386; Gottfried v. Crescent Brewing Co., 9 Fed. 762; Crandal v. Walters, 9 Fed. 659, 20 Blatchf. 97; Griffiths v. Holmes, 8 Fed. 154; Rowell v. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217 [affirmed in 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906] ; American Whip Co. v. Hamp- den Whip Co., 1 Fed. 87; Bean v. Small- wood, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,173, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 133, 2 Story 408; Ex p. Berry, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,353; In re Blandy, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,528, McArthur Pat. Cas. 552; Couse 47. Johnson, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,288, 4 Ban. 6 A. 501, 16 Off. Gaz. 719; Dennis v. Cross, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,792, 3 Biss. 389, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 138; Hazard v. Green, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,277; Mahn v. Harwood, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,966, 3 Ban. & A. 515, 14 Off. Gaz. 859 [affirmed in 112 U. S. 354, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665] ; Northrup t?. Adams, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,328, 2 Ban. & A. 567, 12 Off. Gaz. 430; Piper 17. Moon, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,182, 10 Blatchf. 264, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 180, 3 Off. Gaz. 4; Richardson 47. Lockwood, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,787, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 454, 4 Off. Gaz. 398; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Tyler v. Deval, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,307, 1 Code Rep. (N. Y.) 30; U. S., etc., Salamander Felting Co. v. Haven, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,788, 2 Ban. & A. 164, 9 Off. Gaz. 253; Winans 47. Boston, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,858, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 136, 2 Story 412; Woven-Wire Mattress Co. 17. Whittlesey, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,058, 8 Biss. 23; Millett, etc., Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Allen, 115 Off. Gaz. 1586; In re Adams, 114 Off. Gaz. 2093; Parkes v. Stevens, L. R. 5 Ch. 36, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 18 Wkly. Rep. 233; Jordan 47. Moore, L. R. 1 C. P. 624, 12 Jur. N. S. 766, 35 L. J. C. P. 268, 14 Wkly. Rep. 769; Reg. 47. Cutler, 14 Q. B. 372 note, 68 E. C. L. 373, 3 C. & K. 215, 1 Stark. 354, 2 E. C. L. 138; Thompson v. James, 32 Beav. 570, 55 Eng. Reprint 224; Window Cleanot Co. v. Bosley, 15 Brodix Am. & Eng. Pat. Cas. 64; Ralston 47. Smith, 20 C. B. N. S. 28, 11 H. L. Cas. 223, 35 L. J. C. P. 49, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 1318; Ormson 47. Clarke, 13 C. B. N. S. 337, 9 Jur. N. S. 749, 32 L. J. C. P. 8, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 361, 11 Wkly. Rep. 118 [affirmed in 14 C. B. N. S. 475, 10 Jur. N. S. 128, 32 L. J. C. P. 291, 11 Wkly. Rep. 787, 108 E. C. L. 475] ; Horton 47. Mabon, 12 C. B. N. S. 437, 31 L. J. C. P. 255, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 289, 10 Wkly. Rep. 582, 104 E. C. L. 437 [affirmed in 16 C. B. N. S. 141, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 815, 12 Wkly. Rep. 491, 111 E. C. L. 141]; Patent Bottle Envelope Co. v. Seymer, 5 C. B. N. S. 164, 5 Jur. N. S. 174, 28 L. J. C. P. 22, 94 E. C. L. 164; Tetley 47. Easton, 2 C. B. N. S. 706, 26 L. J. C. P. 269, 89 E. C. L. 706; Steiner v. Heald, 6 Exch. 607, 17 Jur. 875, 20 L. J. Exch. 410; Young v. Fernie, 4 Giffard 577, 10 Jur. N. S. 926, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861, 12 Wkly. Rep. 901, 66 Eng. Reprint 836; Brook v. Aston, 5 Jur. N. S. 1025, 28 L. J. Q. B. 175 [affirming 8 E. & B. 478, 5 Jur. N. S. 279, 27 L. J. Q. B. 145, 6 Wkly. Rep. 42, 92 E. C. L. 478] ; Meldrum 47. Wilson, 7 Can. Exch. 198; Abell 4?. McPherson, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 23 [affirmed. in 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 437]. Applications of rule. Use in gloves of a welt old in shoes is not invention. Busby v. Ladd. 39 Fed. 551. Stitch old in cardigan jackets not patentable for undershirts. Dalby 47. Lynes, 64 Fed. 376. Use of old shifting device on fulling machines is not invention. Royer v. Roth, 132 U. S. 201, 10 S. Ct. 58, 33 L. ed. 322. Fire-extinguisher is anticipated by soda-water apparatus. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. 47. Philadelphia Fire Extin- guisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 177, 6 Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227. Safety pins in ore crusher is mere double use. Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734. Lift- ing pills by device used for lifting paper is not patentable. Stearns v. Russell, 85 Fed. 218, 29 C. C. A. 121. Anti-friction rollers in pipe cutter is not invention. Saunders v. Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157. Preserving corn by process old for other vegetables is not patentable. Jones v. Hodges, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,469, Holmes 37. Making flat sus- pender ends like other button holes has been made not invention. Shenfield v. Nasha- wannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U. S. 56, 11 S. Ct. 5, 34 L. ed. 573. Tempering furniture springs by process old applied to watch springs not invention. Lovell Mfg. Co. 47. Gary, 147 U. S. 623, 13 S. Ct. 472, 37 L. ed. 307 [reversing 31 Fed. 344]. Swaging tooth crowns by old method of swaging is not invention. Rynear Co. 47. Evans, 83 Fed. 696. Electric gas lighter applied to gas engines is not inven- tion. Union Gas-Engine Co. v. Doak, 88 Fed. 86. Hog hoist is anticipated by hoist for building material. In re Lowry, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 473. Suspenders and stocking supporters are analogous. In re Smith, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 181. Woodworking ma- chine used in shoemaking is not invention. McKay-Copeland Lasting "Mach. Co. v. Cope- [III, E, 12] 854: [30 Cye.] PATENTS ing it and no result substantially distinct in its nature will not sustain a patent even if the new form of result lias not before been contemplated. 87 13. NEW AND NON-ANALOGOUS USE. The transfer of an old invention from one art to another which is not analogous and the adaptation of it to perform new functions and accomplish new results in the new art may amount to invention. 84 land Rapid-Laster Mfg. Co., 77 Fed. 306. Painting on clay and canvas are analogous. Fry v. Rookwood Pottery, 101 Fed. 723, 41 C. C. A. 634. Wood-planing and ice-cutting are analogous. In re Briggs, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 478. Journal bearings are in the same art in whatever apparatus they are found. Fraser v. Gates Iron Works, 85 Fed. 441, 29 C. C. A. 261. Use of valve in a new place is not invention unless changes neces- sary. Judson v. Moore, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569. 1 Bond 285, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 544. Chemical processes. It has been held that the rule does not apply to chemical processes. Young v. Fernie, 4 Giffard 577, 10 Jur. N. S. 926, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861, 12 Wkly. Rep. 901, 66 Eng. Reprint 836. 87. Millett v. Allen, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 70; In re Butterfield, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 84; In re Verley, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 597; In re Nimmy, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565; Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U. S. 601, 11 S. Ct. 670, 35 L. ed. 294 [affirming 31 Fed. 80, 24 Blatchf. 392] ; Miller v. Force, 116 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 204, 29 L. ed. 552; Penn- sylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 220, 2*8 L. ed. 222; National Meter Co. v. Neptune Meter Co., 122 Fed. 75 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 563, 62 C. C. A. 345]; Johnson Co. v. Toledo Traction Co., 119 Fed. 885, 56 C. C. A. 415; Standard Caster, etc., Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162, 51 C. C. A. 109; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 107 Fed. 277, 46 C. C. A. 263; Edison Electric Light Co. v. E. G. Bernard Co., 88 Fed. 267 ; U. S. Repair, etc., Co. v. Standard Paving Co., 87 Fed. 339 ; Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co., 77 Fed. 432, 23 C. C. A. 223; Young v. Balti- more County Hedge, etc., Fence Co., 51 Fed. 109; Union Paper-Collar Co. v. Leland, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,394, 1 Ban. & A. 491, Holmes 427, 7 Off. Gaz. 221. 88. In re Weiss, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 S. Ct. 194, 39 L. ed. 275 ; Hale, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Oneonta, etc., R. Co., 124 Fed. 514; Dia- mond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelly, 120 Fed. 289; R. Thomas, etc., Co. v. Electric Porcelain, etc., Co., Ill Fed. 923; Wilfley v. Denver En- gineering Works Co., 1 1 1 Fed. 760 ; American Well Works v. F. C. Austin Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 992 [affirmed in 121 Fed. 76, 57 C. C. A. 330] ; Dodge v. Porter, 98 Fed. 624 ; Reynolds v. Buzzell, 96 Fed. 997, 37 C. C. A. 656; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 89 Fed. 721 [affirmed in 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968]; Hanifen v. E. H. God- shalk Co., 78 Fed. 811; Rose v. Hirsh, 77 Fed. 469, 23 C. C. A. 246 ; Dick Co. v. Henry, 75 Fed. 388; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203; A. B. Dick Co. [III. E, 12] v. Wichelman, 74 Fed. 799; Binns v. Zucker, etc., Chemical Co., 70 Fed. 711; Taws v. Laughlins, 70 Fed. 102; Consolidated Brake- Shoe Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 412; Pacific Contracting Co. v. Southern Califor- nia Bituminous Paving Co., 48 Fed. 300; Peninsular Novelty Co. v. American Shoe- Tip Co., 39 Fed. 791; Moffitt v. Rogers, 8 Fed. 147 [affirmed in 106 U. S. 423, 1 S. Ct. 70, 27 L. ed. 76] ; In re Boughton, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,696, McArthur Pat. Cas. 278; Burden v. Corning, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,144 [reversed on other grounds in 15 How. 252, 14 L. ed. 683]; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Regulator Co. v. Copeland, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221 ; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675 ; Plastic Slate-Roofing Joint-Stock Co. v. Moore, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,209, Holmes 167; Treadwell v. Parrott, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,158, 5 Blatchf. 369, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 124; Winans v. Schenectady, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,865, 2 Blatchf. 279; Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. 127, 36 L. J. Ch. 455, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 299, 15 Wkly. Rep. 208; Lane Fox v. Kensington Electric Lighting Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 424, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 440; Higgs v. Goodwin, E. B. & E. 529, 5 Jur. N. S. 97, 27 L. J. Q. B. 421, 96 E. C. L. 529; Newton v. Vaucher, 6 Exch. 859, 21 L. J. Exch. 305; Hills v. London Gas Light Co., 5 H. & N. 312, 29 L. J. Exch. 409; Crane v. Price, 12 L. J. C. P. 81, 4 M. & G. 580, 5 Scott N. R. 338, 43 E. C. L. 301 ; Gadd v. Manchester, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 569; Dangerfield v. Jones, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 142; Bicknell f. Paterson, 24 Ont. App. 427. And see supra, III, B, 8; III, C, 4, j. Applications of rule. Mending holes in fire- men's hose and mending tin cans not analogous. Ex p. Mackay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,836. Auto- matic safe lock not analogous to gas cock. Yale Lock Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 6 Fed. 377, 19 Blatchf. 123. Corset springs not analogous to carriage springs. Barnes v. Straus, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,022, 9 Blatchf. 553, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531, 2 Off. Gaz. 62. Car- riage step not analogous to shoe soles or stir- rups. Rubber Step Mfg. Co. v. Metropolitan R. Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,101, 3 Ban. & A. 252, 13 Off. Gaz. 549. Spinning machines and centrifugal driers are not analogous. Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203 [affirming 69 Fed. 837]. Egg crate not anticipated by sample case. Coburn v. Schroeder, 8 Fed. 519, 19 Blatchf. 377. Dyeing and tanning are not analogous. Tan- nage Co. v. Zahn, 70 Fed. 1003, 17 C. C. A. 552 [reversing 66 Fed. 986]. Sucker rods for wells and lightning rods are not analogous. Grosjean v. Peck, etc., Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,841, 11 Blatchf. 54. Wash boiler and bake pan not analogous. Bell v. U. S. Stamping PATENTS [30 Cye.] 855 As already shown, if the new use be so nearly analogous to the former one that the applicability of the device to its new use would occur to a person of ordinary mechanical skill, it is only a case of double use ; but if the relations between them be remote, and especially if the use of the old device produce a new result, it may at least involve an exercise of the inventive faculty. 89 " Indeed, it often requires as acute a perception of the relation between cause and effect, and as much of the peculiar intuitive genius which is a characteristic of great inventors, to grasp the idea that a device used in one art may be made available in another, as would be necessary to create the device de novo. And this is not the less true if, after the thing has been done, it appears to the ordinary mind so simple as to excite wonder that it was not thought of before ; . . . but the decisive answer is that with dozens and perhaps hundred of otherjs laboring in the same field, it had never occurred to any one before." ** 14. SUBSTITUTION OF EQUIVALENTS 91 a. In General. The substitution of an art, machine manufacture, or composition of matter of one element or device for another which performs the same functions in substantially the same way and accomplishes substantially the same result is not invention. 92 The substantial Co., 32 Fed. 549. System of electric distri- bution not analogous to gas and water dis- tribution. Edison Electric Co. v. Westing- house, 55 Fed. 490 [reversed on other grounds in 63 Fed. 588, 11 C. C. A. 342]. Combina- tion of muslin and paper patentable for col- lars, although before used for maps. Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14.396, 2 Ban. & A. 60, 7 Off. Gaz. 698, 877, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 479, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 362. Spikes and nails are in different arts. Dia- mond State Iron Co. v. Goldie, 84 Fed. 972, 28 C. C. A. 589. Dyeing and tanning are not analogous. Tannage Patent Co. v. Donallen, 93 Fed. 811. Spinning wheels and centrifu- tal machines are not analogous. Taylor v. awyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203 ; Codman v. Amia, 74 Fed. 634, 20 C. C. A. 566. Where no change is necessary to adapt device to new use there is no invention, how- ever remote the art. Stearns v. Russell, 85 Fed. 218, 29 C. C. A. 121. 89. Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 5. Ct. 194, 39 L. ed. 275; General Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Mfg. Co., 152 Fed. 427, 81 C. C. A. 569 [reversing 146 Fed. 552]. 90. Potts 17. Creagher, 155 U. S. 597, 607, 15 S. Ct. 194, 39 L. ed. 275 ; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203. 91. Substitution of equivalents of elements in infringing combination see infra, XIII, A, 6, g. 92. In re Hodges, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 525; In re Thurston, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 315; In re McNeill, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 294; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Kearney, 158 U. S. 461, 15 S. Ct. 871, 39 L. ed. 1055; Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 15 S. Ct. 729, 39 L. ed. 895; Sargent r. Covert, 152 U. S. 516, 14 S. Ct. 676, 38 L. ed. 536; Hoyt v. Home, 145 U. S. 302, 12 S. Ct. 922, 36 L. ed. 713; Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 119 U. S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. ed. 539; Stephenson u. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 114 U. S. 149, 5 S. Ct. 777, 29 L. ed. 58 ; Hall v. Macneale, 107 U. S. 90, 2 S. Ct. 73, 27 L. ed. 367; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910; Crouch v. Roemer, 103 U. S. 797, 26 L. ed. 426; Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. i?. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120, 24 L. ed. 935 ; Robert&on v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245 ; Dunbar u. Meyers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Smith . Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 112, 22 L. ed. 566; Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 117, 19 L. ed. 866; O'Reilly 17. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601 ; Lourie Implement Co. 17. Len- hart, 130 Fed. 122, 64 C. C. A. 456; U. S. Peg Wood, etc., Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 125 Fed. 378, 60 C. C. A. 244; Seiler v. Fuller, etc., Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 85, 57 C. C. A. 339; Alaska Packers' Assoc. i?. Letson, 119 Fed. 599; Lane 17. Welds, 99 Fed. 286, 39 C. C. A. 528; Potts v. Creager, 97 Fed. 78, 38 C. C. A. 47; Bundy Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Time-Register Co., 94 Fed. 524, 36 C. C. A. 375; Parsons v. Seelye, 92 Fed. 1005; Boyn- ton Co. i?. Morris Chute Co., 82 Fed. 440: Forgie i?. Duff Mfg. Co., 81 Fed. 865, 26 C. C. A. 654; New Departure Bell Co. v. Hardware Specialty Co., 69 Fed. 152; Oval Wood Dish Co. v. Sandy Creek, N. Y., Wood Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 285 ; Geo. L. Thomson Mfg. Co. v. Walbridge, 60 Fed. 91 [affirmed in 67 Fed. 1021, 15 C. C. A. 166]; Saunders 17. Allen. 53 Fed. 109 [affirmed in 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157] ; McCarty 17. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 43 Fed. 384; American Split- Feather Duster Co. 17. Levy, 43 Fed. 381; May 17. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Sawyer ir. Miller, 12 Fed. 725, 4 Woods 472; Perry 17. Co-operative Foundry Co., 12 Fed. 436, 20 Blatchf. 498; Crompton v. Knowles, 7 Fed. 204; Holly 17. Vergennes Mfg. Co., 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327; Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turn- ing Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 258, Fish. Pat. Rep. 184; Conover v. Roach, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,125, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12 ; Ex p. Dietz, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,902 ; In re Everson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,580, McAr- thur Pat. Cas. 406; Fisher v. Craig, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,817, 1 Ban. & A. 365, 3 Sawy. 69; King v. Louisville Cement Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,798, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 336, 4 Off. Gaz. 181; Potter 17. Thayer, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,340, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 603, Holmes 293, 2 Off. Gaz. 32; Spain v. Gamble, 22 Fed. Cas. [Ill, E, 14, a] 856 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS equivalent of a thing is, in the sense of the patent law, the same as the thing itself. Two devices which perform the same function in substantially the same way and accomplish substantially the same result are therefore the same, although they may differ in name and form. 93 b. Superiority of Substituted Part No Test. The fact that the substituted part performs the function better does not make the act of substitution an invention, 94 unless some new or added function or result is secured which would not be obvious to one skilled in the art. 95 15. SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIAL. The mere substitution of one material for another in an old article where it performs substantially the same functions is not an invention, 96 although the substituted material may be better for the pur- No. 13,199, McArthur Pat. Gas. 35; Tread- well v. Fox, 24 Fed. Gas. No. 14,156; Wood- bury Patent Planing-Mach. Co. v. Keith, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 17,970, 4 Ban. & A. 100 [af- firmed in 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939] ; Mil- lett v. Allen, 115 Off. Gaz. 1586; Wisner v. Coulthard, 22 Can. Sup. Ct. 178; Hunter v. Carrick, 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 300; Smith v. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46. Substitution of bolt for screw not patent- able. Root v. Sontag, 47 Fed. 309. Substitution of logs for rollers not inven- tion. Woodbury Patent Planing-Mach. Co. v. Keith, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 17,970, 4 Ban. & A. 100 [affirmed in 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939]. Substitution of screw for hand operated paddles not invention. Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195, 10 S. Ct. 65, 33 L. ed. 332 [af- firming 26 Fed. 629, 23 Blatchf. 435]. Substitution of electric motor for engine not invention. Shaw Electric Crane Co. v. Shriver, 86 Fed. 466, 30 C. C. A. 196. Substitution of internal for external gears not invention. Mast v. Stover Mfg. Co., 91 Off. Gaz. 1239. Unless the mode of operation is the same there is no equivalency. Conover v. Roach, 6 Fed. Gas. No. 3,125, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 12. Unexpected result shows lack of equiva- lency. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. New England Granite Co., 103 Fed. 951. Substitution of single element performing function of several. Where three separate elements in a patented device, each perform- ing an individual function, are supplanted in another device by a single element which itself performs the functions of all three, the threefold capacity of the single element is not the equivalent of the three separate elements. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 154 Fed. 372, 83 C. C. A. 350 [modi- fying 150 Fed. 364]. Mechanical devices are equivalents when skilful and experienced workmen know that one will produce the same result as the other. May 17. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Gas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Gas. No. 7,411, 1 Fish. Pat. Gas. 351. What are equivalents illustrated. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S. 164, 14 S. Ct. 68, 37 L. ed. 1039; Morley Sewing Mach. Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263, 9 S. Ct. 299, 32 L. ed. 715; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite [III, E, 14. a] Co. i?. Davis, 102 U. S. 222, 26 L. ed. 149; Hyndman v. Roots, 97 U. S. 224, 24 L. ed. 975; Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 327, 19 L. *d. 93. 93. Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120, 24 L. ed. 935. 94. In re McNeil], 20 App. Gas. (D. C.) 294; National Hat-Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Hedden, 148 U. S. 482, 13 S. Ct. 680, 37 L, ed. 529; Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 117, 19 L. ed. 866; Lyons v. Bishop, 95 Fed. 154; Parsons v. Seelye, 92 Fed. 1005; Kelly v. Springfield R. Co., 81 Fed. 617 [affirmed in 92 Fed. 614, 34 C. C. A. 570]; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Stecher Lith. Co., 81 Fed. 395, 26 C. C. A. 448; Codman v. Amia, 74 Fed. 634, 20 C. C. A. 566 ; Puetz v. Brans- ford, 31 Fed. 458; Hutchinson f. Meyer, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,957. 95. Substitution of part performing new function may be invention. Mosher v. Joyce, 31 Fed. 557; Woodward v. Dinsmore, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,003, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 163. Torsional spring for fulcrum and coil spring in telegraph instrument is invention. La Rue v. Western Electric Co., 31 Fed. 80, 24 Blatchf. 392 [affirmed in 139 U. S. 601, 11 S. Ct. 670, 35 L. ed. 294]. Coil spring for flat spring invention. Bray v. U. S. Net, etc., Co., 70 Fed. 1006. 96. Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 13 S. Ct. 221, 36 L. ed. 1068; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158; Houghton v. Whitin Mach. Works, 153 Fed. 740, 83 C. C. A. 84 ; New York Belting, etc., Co. v. Sierer, 149 Fed. 756 [affirmed in 158 Fed. 819] ; Drake Castle Pressed Steel Lug Co. v. Brownell, 123 Fed. 86, 59 C. C. A. 216; National Tooth Crown Co. v. Macdonald, 117 Fed. 617; Union Hardware Co. v. Selchow, 112 Fed. 1006; Billings, etc., Co. r. Van Wagoner, etc., Hardware Co., 98 Fed. 732; Kilbourne v. W. Bingham Co., 50 Fed. 697, 1 C. C. A. 617 [affirming 47 Fed. 57] ; Vul- canized Fiber Co. v. Taylor, 49 Fed. 744; Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Heineken, 37 Fed. 686; National Sheet-Metal Roofing Co. v. Garwood, 35 Fed. 658; Mott Iron- Works v. Cassidy, 31 Fed. 47, 24 Blatchf. 289; Forsch- ner v. Baumgarten, 26 Fed. 858 ; Welling v. Crane, 21 Fed. 707; American Iron Co. v. Anglo-American Roofing Co., 16 Fed. 915, 21 Blatchf. 324; Palmenbing v. Buchholz, 13 Fed. 672. 21 Blatchf. 162; Carter v. Mes- singer, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,478, 11 Blatchf. 34; Holbrook v. Small, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,595, PATENTS [30 Cye.] 857 pose. 97 The rule applies even where the material is new and was invented by the one claiming the substitution as his invention. He should claim the material only unless the act of substitution after the production of the material call for inventive thought. 98 Where, however, the substituted material performs new functions and its adaptability for the purpose was not obvious there may be invention in the substitution." And substitution may be considered on the issue of invention where it makes possible changes in other elements of a combination to produce improved operation. 1 16. CHANGE OF LOCATION OF PARTS. Ordinarily changes of the relative location of parts without changing the functions performed is not an invention. 2 17. OMISSION OF PARTS. 3 The omission of a part with a corresponding omission of its function is not invention, 4 but an omission of a part with a rearrangement 2 Ban. & A. 396, 10 Off. Gaz. 508; Mannie v. Everett, 16 Fed. Gas. No. Q-,039; Rushton v. Crawley, L. R. 10 Eq. 522; Ball v. Compton Corset Co.. 13 Can. Sup. Ct. 469. Drawn metal for cast metal is not inven- tion. McKloskey v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. 710, 19 Blatchf. 205. Wood for stone in pavement blocks is not invention. Phillips v. Detroit, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,100, 4 Ban. & A. 347, 17 Off. Gaz. 191 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 604, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L. ed. 53C]. Artificial honey is not a mere substitution of materials in real honey. In re Corbin, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,224, McArthur Pat. Cas. 521. Substitution of materials in designs not invention. Post v. T. C. Richards Hardware Co., 26 Fed. 618. 97. In re Cheneau, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 197; Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734 [affirming 42 Fed. 49] ; Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 11 S. Ct. 20, 34 L. ed. 574; Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 670, 21 L. ed. 852; A. B. Dick Co. v. Wichelman, 105 Fed. 629; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works, 101 Fed. 584; Plastic Fireproof Constr. Co. v. San Francisco, 97 Fed. 620; Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weir Frog Co., 83 Fed. 170, 27 C. C. A. 502; Hotchkiss v. Green- wood, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,718, 4 McLean 456, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 730 [affirmed in 11 How. 248, 13 L. ed. 683] ; In re Maynard, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,352, McArthur Pat. Cas. 536. 98. Brigham v. Coffin, 149 U. S. 557, 13 S. Ct. 939, 37 L. ed. 845; Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224, 13 S. Ct. 854, 37 L. ed. 710. 99. Ansonia Brass, etc., Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 11, 12 S. Ct. 601, 36 L. ed. 327; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vul- canite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 952 ; George Frost Co. 17. Cohn, 119 Fed. 505, 56 C. C. A. 185 [affirming 112 Fed. 1009] ; King v. An- derson, 90 Fed. 500; Fairbanks Wood Rim Co. v. Moore, 78 Fed. 490 ; Perkins v. Interior Lumber Co., 51 Fed. 286; Clarke v. Johnson, 4 Fed. 437, 18 Blatchf. 450; Spill v. Cellu- loid Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. 707, 18 Blatchf. 190; Eso p. Adams, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 38a; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5.603, 1 Ban. & A. 568, 1 Flipp. 388, 7 Off. Gaz. 41. Substitution of carbon filament for plati- num is invention. Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83. 1. Houghton v. Whitin Mach. Works, 153 Fed. 740, 83 C. C. A. 84. 2. In re Garrett, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 19; Goss Printing-Press Co. v. Scott, 108 Fed. 253, 47 C. C. A. 302; Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 909 ; Stevenson Co. v. McFassell, 88 Fed. 278; Olmsted v. Andrews, 77 Fed. 835, 23 C. C. A. 488; New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. 459, 19 C. C. A. 534; Reed v. Pomeroy, 71 Fed. 299; Stutz v. Robson, 54 Fed. 506; Haughey v. Lee, 48 Fed. 382; Davis v. Parkman, 45 Fed. 693 [affirmed in 71 Fed. 961, 18 C. C. A. 398]; Gorse v. Parker, 35 Fed. 129; Hancock In- spirator Co. 17. Lelly, 27 Fed. 88; Dederick 17. Whitman Agricultural Co., 26 Fed. 755; Phipps v. Yost, 26 Fed. 447 ; Dane v. Illinois, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,558, 3 Biss. 374, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 124, 2 Off. Gaz. 680; Gilbert, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,418, 2 Ban. & A. 271, 9 Off. Gaz. 746; Kirby v. Beardsley, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,837, 5 Blatchf. 438, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 265; Marsh 17. Dodge, etc., Mfg. Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,115; Owens v. Taylor, 29 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 210; Taylor v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 21 Ont. App. 361. Mere reversal of parts is not invention. In re Iwan, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 566; Pen- field v. Chambers Bros. Co., 92 Fed. 630, 34 C. C. A. 579; Sax 17. Taylor Iron Works, 30 Fed. 835 [affirmed in 149 U. S. 485, 13 S. Ct. 1051, 37 L. ed. 964]. Making lower roll instead of upper mov- able is not invention. Abbott Mach. Co. v. Bonn, 51 Fed. 223. Changing location of attachment for train pipes for convenience is not invention. Plumb 17. New York, etc., R. Co., 97 Fed. 645. 3. Omission of elements in infringing com- bination see infra, XIII, A, 6, h. 4. In re Butterfield, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 84; Richards 17. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225 ; Magin v. Karle, 150 U. S. 387, 14 S. Ct. 153, 37 L. ed. 1118; Dececo Co. v. George E. Gil- christ Co., 125 Fed. 293, 60 C. C. A. 207; Gormully, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Sager Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 945; Ferguson v. Ed. Roos Mfg. Co., 71 Fed. 416, 18 C. C. A. 162; Needham v. [HI, E, 17] 858 [30 Cye.] PATENTS of the remaining parts whereby the same result is secured by a less number of parts may be. 5 18. MAKING PARTS INTEGRAL OR SEPARATE. There is ordinarily no invention in making solid castings in place of attached parts, 6 or in making separately parts before made integral. 7 The practice is so well known as to be within the knowl- edge of the ordinary mechanic. 8 19. MAKING DEVICE PORTABLE. There is no invention in merely making an old device in such form that it is portable. 9 20. COMBINATION 10 a. In General. Where old elements are brought into a new relation, where by their interaction they perform new functions and produce a new result there is a patentable invention. 11 But it is not invention to merely Washburn, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,082, 1 Ban. & A. 537, 4 Cliff. 254, 7 Off. Gaz. 649 ; Stow v. Chicago, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,512, 3 Ban. & A. 83, 8 Biss. 47 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 547, 26 L. ed. 816]. 5. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225; Magin v. Karle, 150 U. S. 387, 14 S. Ct. 153, 37 L. ed. 1118; Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 L. ed. 325; Brown v. Huntington Piano Co., 134 Fed. 735, 67 C. C. A. 639 [affirming 131 Fed. 273]; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Dececo Co. v. George E. Gilchrist Co., 125 Fed. 293; American Graphaphone Co. v. Leeds, 87 Fed. 873; Coupe v. Weatherhead, 16 Fed. 673; Stow v. Chicago, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,512, 3 Ban. & A. 83, 8 Biss. 47 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 547, 26 L. ed. 816]. Omission of element of composition may be invention. Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92. 6. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S. 164, 14 S. Ct. 68, 37 L. ed. 1039; Gen- eral Electric Co. v. Yost Electric Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 874; Eames v. Worcester Poly- technic Inst., 123 Fed. 67, 60 C. C. A. 37; Lay v. Indianapolis Brush, etc., Mfg. Co., 120 Fed. 831, 57 C. C. A. 313; Standard Caster, etc., Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162, 51 C. C. A. 109; Consolidated Electric Mfg. Co. v. Holtzer, 67 Fed. 907, 15 C. C. A. 63; Williams v. Goodyear Me- tallic Rubber Shoe Co., 54 Ffed. 498, 4 C. C. A. 485; Kilbourne v. W. Bingham Co., 50 Fed. 697, 1 C. C. A. 617 [affirming 47 Fed. 57] ; Bothe v. Paddock-Hawley Iron Co., 50 Fed. 536, 1 C. C. A. 575. Riveted in place of cast parts is not pat- entable. Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling Mills Co., 59 Fed. 242. Pasting parts together is not invention. Johnson v. Hero Fruit-Jar Co., 55 Fed. 659. Swaging instead of casting is not inven- tion. Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weir Frog Co., 75 Fed. 279 [affirmed in 83 Fed. 170, 27 C. C. A. 502]. Fusing instead of cementing parts is not invention. In re Locke, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 314. Making collar button in one piece is pat- entable. Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 556, 13 S. Ct. 719, 37 L. ed. 558 [reversing 39 Fed. 323]. [HI, E, 17] 7. Making part detachable is not inven- tion. Roehr v. Bliss, 82 Fed. 445; Kidd v. Horry, 33 Fed. 712. Making parts removable may be invention. McMichael, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Stafford, 105 Fed. 380. 8. In re Seabury, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 377. 9. Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 S. Ct. 1275, 32 L. ed. 207 ; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1042, 29 L. ed. 76; Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 2 S. Ct. 225, 27 L. ed. 438; Olmsted v. Andrews, 77 Fed. 835, 23 C. C. A. 488; Black Diamond Coal Min. Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 70 Off. Gaz. 1797. And see Kokomo Fence Machine Co. v. Kitselman, 189 U. S. 8 [reversing 108 Fed. 632, 47 C. C. A. 538]. 10. Combination of parts of prior inven- tion as showing prior knowledge or use see supra, III, C, 4, i. New combination as showing novelty of de- vice see supra, III, B, 10. 11. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 22 L. ed. 241; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Spear v. Keystone Lantern Co., 131 Fed. 879 [reversed on other grounds in 136 Fed. 595, 69 C. C. A. 369] ; Perkins Electric Switch Mfg. Co. r. Buchanan, 129 Fed. 134 [affirmed in 135 Fed. 90, 67 C. C. A. 564] ; L. A. Thompson Scenic R. Co. v. Chestnut Hill Casino Co., 127 Fed. 698, 62 C. C. A. 454; Brill v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 124 Fed. 778 [reversed on other grounds in 134 Fed. 580, 67 C. C. A. 380] ; Peters v. Union Biscuit Co., 120 Fed. 679 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 601, 60 C. C. A. 337] ; Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelly, 120 Fed. 295; Moore v. Schaw, 118 Fed. 602; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 118 Fed. 136, 55 C. C. A. 86; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co., 116 Fed. 629; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co., 115 Fed. 886, 53 C. C. A. 36 ; Nelson v. A. D. Farmer, etc., Type-Founding Co., 95 Fed. 145, 37 C. C. A. 32; American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, 87 Fed. 873; Deere v. Rock Island Plow Co., 84 Fed. 171, 28 C. C. A. 308; Muller v. Lodge, etc., Mach. Tool Co., 77 Fed. 621, 23 C. C. A. 357; Western Wheel-Scraper Co. t?. Doinnin, 77 Fed. 194; American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Green, 75 Fed. 680 ; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203; Fisher v. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 859 extend the use of an old combination of elements, where no new result is produced and no new method of producing the old result. 12 b. Lack of Novelty in Elements Immaterial. The invention in such case has nothing to do with the novelty or lack of novelty in the separate elements, but resides in the particular way in which the elements have been combined. 13 When a combination is claimed it is said that there is an implied concession that the elements are separately old. 14 e. Coaetion of Elements Necessary. It is not necessary that each element should perform its own function and also modify the function performed by every other, 13 but there must be such coaction and modification that a result is American Pneumatic Tool Co., 71 Fed. 523, 18 C. C. A. 235 {.affirming 69 Fed. 331] ; U. S. Printing Co. v. American Playing-Card Co., 70 Fed. 50 ; Johnson v. Forty Second St., etc., R. Co., 33 Fed. 499; Niles Tool Co. v. Betts Mach. Co., 27 Fed. 301; McKesson v. Carn- rick, 9 Fed. 44, 19 Blatchf. 158; Brickill v. New York, 7 Fed. 479, 18 Blatchf. 273; Mc- Millan v. Rees, 1 Fed. 722; Ames v. Howard, I Fed. Cas. No. 326, 1 Robb Pat. Gas. 689, 1 Sumn. 482; Bailey Washing, etc., Mach. Co. 17. Lincoln, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 750, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 379; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Gallahue v. Butterfield, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,198, 10 Blatchf. 232, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203, 2 Off. Gaz. 645; Herring t\ Nelson, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,424, 3 Ban. & A. 55, 14 Blatchf. 293, 12 Off. Gaz. 753; Many v. Sizer, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,056, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 17; Pitts v. Whitman, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,196, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189, 2 Story 609; Roemer v. Logo- witz, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,996; Russell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mallory, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,166, 10 Blatchf. 140, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 632, 2 Off. Gaz. 495: Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthies- son, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Woodward v. Dinsmore, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,003, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 163; Clark v. Adie, 2 App. Cas. 315, 46 L. J. Ch. 585, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 923 [af- firming 23 Wkly. Rep. 898]; Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co., 1 App. Cas. 574; Mur- ray v. Clayten, L. R. 7 Ch. 570, 20 Wkly. Rep. 649; Adie v. Clark, 3 Ch. D. 134, 45 L. J. Ch. 228, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 349, 24 Wkly. Rep. 1007; Daw v. Eley, L. R. 3 Eq. 496, 36 L. J. Ch. 482, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 559; Newton v. Grand Junction R. Co., 5 Exch. 331 note, 20 L. J. Exch. 427 note; Lukie v. Robson, 2 Jur. 201; In re Martin, 3 Wkly. Rep. 433 ; Dansereau v. Bellemare, 16 Can. Sup. Ct. 180; Hunter v. Carrick, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 489 [reversed on other grounds in 10 Ont. App. 449 (affirmed in II Can. Sup. Ct. 300)]. Addition of one element to old combina- tion may be patentable. Buck v. Hermance, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,082, 1 Blatchf. 398, Fish. Pat. Rep. 251; Frink v. Petry, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,128, 1 Ban. & A. 1, 11 Blatchf. 422, 5 Off. Gaz. 201; Hall v. Wiles, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,954, 2 Blatchf. 194, Fish. Pat. Rep. 433. Alarm and time recorder combined is pat- entable. Municipal Signal Co. v. Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 52 Fed. 459. Merely putting several articles in one pack- age is not invention. King v. Frostel, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,794, 4 Ban. & A. 236, 8 Biss. 510, 16 Off. Gaz. 956, 8 Reporter 490 [affirmed in 109 U. S. 99, 3 S. Ct. 85, 27 L. ed. 870]. 12. Voightmann t*. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 148 Fed. 848, 78 C. C. A. 538 [affirming 133 Fed. 298] ; Schweichler v. Levinson, 147 Fed. 704, 78 C. C. A. 92. 13. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586 ; Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553; Web- ster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580., 26 L. ed. 1177; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 22 L. ed. 241; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Lowrie v. H. A. Meldrum Co., 124 Fed. 761 [reversed on other grounds in 130 Fed. 886, 65 C. C. A. 194] ; Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Van Nort Bros. Electric Co., 116 Fed. 974; American Tobacco Co. v. Streat, 83 Fed. 700, 28 C. C. A. 18; Buck v. Her- mance, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,082, 1 Blatchf. 398, Fish. Pat. Rep. 251; Ryan v. Goodwin, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,186, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 725, 3 Sumn. 514; Westlake v, Cartter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,451, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 519, 4 Off. Gaz. 636; Woodman v. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98 [re- versed on other grounds in 10 Wall. 117, 19 L. ed. 866] ; Spencer v. Jack, 3 De G. J. & S. 346, 8 Jur. N. S. 1165, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 242, 1 Wkly. Rep. 114, 68 Eng. Ch. 262, 46 Eng. Reprint 669; Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1004, 4 Jur. N. S. 947, 27 L. J. Q. B. 295, 92 E. C. L. 1004; Bovill v. Moore, 2 Marsh. 211, 17 Rev. Rep. 514, 4 E. C. L. 481; Smith v. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46; Griffin v. Toronto R. Co., 7 Can. Exch. 411; Mitchell v. Nancock Inspirator Co., 2 Can. Exch. 539; Toronto Tel. Mfg. Co. v. Bell Tel. Co., 2 Can. Exch. 495; Yates v. Great Western R. Co., 24 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 495; Patric v. Sylvester, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 573; Emery v. Iredale, 11 U. C. C. P. 106. And see supra, III, C, 4, i. 14. Hay v. S. F. Heath Cycle Co., 71 Fed. 411, 18 C. C. A. 157. 15. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 22 L. ed. 241; Dayton Malleable Iron Co. v. Forster, 153 Fed. 201 ; Sanders v. Han- cock, 128 Fed. 424, 63 C. C. A. 166; American St. Car Advertising Co. t\ Newton St. R. Co., 82 Fed. 732; National Cash-Register Co. v. American Cash-Register Co., 53 Fed. 367, 3 C. C. A. 559; Wood v. Packer, 17 Fed. 650; Strobridge v. Landers, 11 Fed. 880, 20 Blatchf. 73; Fitch t?. Bragg, 8 Fed. 588. [Ill, E, 20, e] 860 [30 Cye.] PATENTS produced which is not merely the sum of the results produced by the separate elements. 16 21. AGGREGATION a. In General. An aggregation is the mere bringing together of separate elements without changing the function performed by them or producing any result other than the added result of the separate operation of the elements and is not a patentable invention. 17 A combination, to be patent- 16. Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U. S. 539, 12 S. Ct. 66, 35 L. ed. 849; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523, 5 S. Ct. 1007, 29 L. ed. 232; Voightman v. Perkinson, 133 Fed. 934 [af- firmed in 138 Fed. 56, 70 C. C. A. 482]; Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co., 127 Fed. 341; J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Hoff- man, etc., Mfg. Co., 120 Fed. 1019, 56 C. C. A. 151 [affirming 110 Fed. 772] ; Goodyear Tire, etc., Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 116 Fed. 363, 53 C. C. A. 583 ; Parsons v. Minneapolis Threshing-Mach. Co., 106 Fed. 941 ; St. Louis Car-Coupler Co. v. National Malleable Cast- ings Co., 87 Fed. 885, 31 C. C. A. 265; Deere v. Rock Island Plow Co., 84 Fed. 171, 28 C. C. A. 308; Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 916; American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Green, 75 Fed. 680; Bovvers i?. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 572; Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co., 59 Fed. 581; Brickill v. Hartford, 49 Fed. 372 ; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson Co. R. Co., 24 Fed. 793; Peard v. Johnson, 23 Fed. 507; Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. 843 ; Clark Pomace-Holder Co. v. Fer- guson, 17 Fed. 79, 21 Blatchf. 376; Western Electric Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Electric Mfg. Co., 14 Fed. 691, 11 Biss. 427; Hoe v. Cottrell, 1 Fed. 597, 17 Blatchf. 546; Gallahue v. Butterfield, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,198, 10 Blatchf. 232, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203, 2 Off. Gaz. 645; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. Simultaneous operation of elements is not necessary. Hoffman v. Young, 2 Fed. 74; Birdsall v. McDonald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 165, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Forbush v. Cook, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,931, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 668. 17. In re Seabury, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 377; In re Davenport, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 370; In re Griswold, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 496; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 991; Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 342, 15 S. Ct. 381, 39 L. ed. 445; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 S. Ct. 1, 39 L. ed. 64; Giles v. Heysinger, 150 U. S. 627, 14 S. Ct. 211, 37 L. ed. 1204; Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 149 U. S. 550, 13 S. Ct. 941, 37 L. ed. 843; Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 13 S. Ct. 221, 36 L. ed. 1068; Derby v. Thompson, 146 U. S. 476, 13 S. Ct. 181, 36 L. ed. 1051; Patent Clothing Co. v. Glover, 141 U. S. 560, 12 S. Ct. 79, 35 L. ed. 858; Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U. S. 539, 12 S. Ct. 66, 35 L. ed. 849; duett v. Claflin, 140 U. S. 180, 11 S. Ct. 725, 35 L. ed. 385; Union Edge-Setter Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 530, 11 S. Ct. 621, 35 L. ed. 261; Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. [Ill, E, 20, c] 423, 11 S. Ct. 150, 34 L. ed. 719; Fond du Lac County v. May, 137 U. S. 395, 11 S. Ct. 98, 34 L. ed. 714; Burt v. Every, 133 U. S. 349, 10 S. Ct. 394, 33 L. ed. 647; Hendy r. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 S. Ct. 1275, 32 L. ed. 207; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286, 7 S. Ct. 1034, 30 L. ed. 942; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523, 5 S. Ct. 1007, 29 L. ed. 232 ; Bussey v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 110 U. S. 131, 4 S. Ct. 38, 28 L. ed. 95; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. ed. 749 ; Rubber-Coated Harness Trimming Co. v. Welling, 97 U. S. 7, 24 L. ed. 942; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 22 L. ed. 241 ; Cameron Septic Tank Co. 17. Saratoga Springs, 151 Fed. 242 [reversed on other grounds in 159 Fed. 453] ; Rich v. Baldwin, 133 Fed. 920, 66 C. C. A. 464; West Coast Safety Faucet Co. r. Jackson Brewing Co., 117 Fed. 295, 54 C. C. A. 533; Wellman t7. Midland Steel Co., 106 Fed. 221; Gast v. New York Asbestos Mfg. Co., 105 Fed. 68; Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Duplex Prmting-Press Co., 101 Fed. 282, 41 C. C. A. 351; Smith v. Maxwell, 93 Fed. 466; Clisby v. Reese, 88 Fed. 645, 32 C. C. A. 80 ; Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670, 21 C. C. A. 491; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Globe Co., 65 Fed. 599 [affirmed in 77 Fed. 465, 23 C. C. A. 242] ; Deere v. J. I. Case Plow Works, 56 Fed. 841, 6 C. C. A. 157; Mott Iron Works Co. v. Stand- ard Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 819, 4 C. C. A. 28; Campbell v. Bailey, 45 Fed. 564 [affirmed in 63 Fed. 463, 11 C. C. A. 284]; National Progress Bunching Mach. Co. v. John R. Williams Co., 44 Fed. 190, 12 L. R. A. 107; Young v. Jackson, 43 Fed. 387 ; Rapid Service Store R. Co. v. Taylor, 43 Fed. 249 ; Richards v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 40 Fed. 165; Jones f. Clow, 39 Fed. 785; Schmid v. Scovill Mfg. Co., 37 Fed. 345; Tower v. Bemis, etc., Hard- ware, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 498; Doubleday v. Roess, 11 Fed. 737; Moffitt v. Rogers, 8 Fed. 147 [affirmed in 106 U. S. 423, 1 S. Ct. 70, 27 L. ed. 76] ; Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 26, 9 Biss. 258 ; Sarven t7. Hall, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,369, 9 Blatchf. 524, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415, 1 Off. Gaz. 437; Griswold v. Seymour, 78 Off. Gaz. 482. Placing oil tank and other receptacles on one car not invention. Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 54 Fed. 521, 4 C. C. A. 491 [affirming 48 Fed. 109]. Window in stove flue is mere aggregation. Perry v. Co-operative Foundry Co., 12 Fed. 436, 20 Blatchf. 498. Placing rubber on end of lead pencil is aggregation not invention. Reckendorfer 17. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 861 able, must produce a different force, effect, or result in the combined forces or processes from that given by their separate parts. 18 No one, by bringing together several old devices without producing a new and useful result, the joint product of the elements of the combination, and something more than an aggregate of old results, can acquire a right to prevent others from using the same devices, either singly or in other combinations, or, even if a new and useful result is obtained, can prevent others from using some of the devices, omitting others, in combina- tion. 19 Superiority does not make aggregation patentable. 20 b. Multiplication of Elements. The multiplication of elements may go on indefinitely without producing a patentable invention, 21 since no exercise of the inventive faculty is involved in merely collecting at one place or in one machine a lot of elements which do not so modify the actions of each other as to produce a new result. 22 c. Novel Elements. Novelty in one or more of the separate elements does not justify a claim to the collection of those elements unless there is coaction between them producing a new result. 23 The novel element in such case may be patentable if claimed separately. 24 22. EVIDENCE OF INVENTION a. Unsuccessful Efforts of Others. Proof that others skilled in the art had previously sought to accomplish the results of the patented device and that their efforts and experiments were unsuccessful may be and ordinarily is evidence that invention and not mere judgment and skill was required in conceiving and producing it. 25 It has been held, however, that the Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719; Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Fed. Gas. No. 12,102, 9 Blatchf. 490, 5 Fish. Pat. Gas. 377, I Off. Gaz. 407 [affirmed in 20 Wall. 498, 22 L. ed. 410]. Fire lighter attached to kindling wood is not invention. Alcott v. Young, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 149, 4 Ban. & A. 197, 16 Blatchf. 134, 7 Reporter 552, 16 Off. Gaz. 403. Aggregation of door and striker plate. In re Forg, 2 App. Gas. (D. C.) 58. Aggregation of staple and washer see Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 117, 3 S. Ct. 105, 27 L. ed. 877. 18. Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719. 19. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 22 L. ed. 241. 20. Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co., 174 U. S. 492, 19 S. Ct. 641, 43 L. ed. 1058; Goodyear Tire, etc., Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 116 Fed. 363, 53 C. C. A. 583. Aggregation applies to article as well as machine. Antisdel v. Chicago Hotel Cabinet Co., 89 Fed. 308, 32 C. C. A. 216. Aggregation applies to designs. North- rup i?. Adams, 18 Fed. Gas. No. 10,328, 2 Ban. & A. 567, 12 Off. Gaz. 430. 21. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 991, 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225. 22. Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, II S. Ct. 20, 34 L. ed. 574; Overweight Coun- terbalance Elevator Co. v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co., 102 Fed. 957, 43 C. C. A. 80; Interior Lumber Co. v. Perkins, 80 Fed. 528, 25 C. C. A. 613; Campbell v. H. T. Conde Im- plement Co., 74 Fed. 745; Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co. r. Yaryan Mfg. Co., 43 Fed. 140; Buck v. Hermance, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,082, 1 Blatchf. 398, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 251. 23. In re McNeill, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 294; Batten v. Clayton, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,105. Claim to combination is an implied conces- sion that the elements are separately old. Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. c. Improved Order of Red Men's Hall Assoc., 94 Fed. 155, 36 C. C. A. 125; Hay v. S. F. Heath Cycle Co., 71 Fed. 411, 18 C. C. A. 157. 24. Claim to combination protects all new parts. Parkes v. Stevens, L. R. 5 Ch. 36, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 18 Wkly. Rep. 233 [affirmed in L. R. 8 Eq. 358, 38 L. J. Ch. 627, 17 Wkly. Rep. 846]. 25. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587, 12 S. Ct. 598, 36 L. ed. 272; American Graphophone Co. v. Universal Talking Mach. Mfg. Co., 151 Fed. 595, 81 C. C. A. 139 [re- versing 145 Fed. 636, 643] ; Albright v. Lang- feld, 131 Fed. 473; Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pittsburg Reduction Co., 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636; George Frost Co. v. Cohn, 119 Fed. 505, 56 C. C. A. 185; Hanifen v. Armitage, 117 Fed. 845; Star Brass Works v. General Electric Co., Ill Fed. 398, 49 C. C. A. 409 ; Tannage Patent Co. v. Donallan, 93 Fed. 811; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Winchester Ave. R. Co., 71 Fed. 192; Binns v. Zucker, etc., Chemical Co., 70 Fed. 711; Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co., 59 Fed. 581 [modified in 63 Fed. 962, 11 C. C. A. 528] ; Columbia Chemical Works v. Rutherford, 58 Fed. 787 ; Consolidated Brake- Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 874; Niles Tool-Works v. Betts Mach. Co., 27 Fed. 301; Ward v. Grand Detour Plow Co., 14 Fed. 696; Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,876, 2 Ban. & A. 469, 11 Off. Gaz. 2; Terry Clock Cc% v. New Haven Clock Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,840, 4 Ban. [Ill, E, 22, a] 862 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS scope of mechanical skill not being restricted to the skill of any particular mechanic, it is not conclusive that more than mechanical skill was involved in producing a particular device, that, prior to the application for the patent thereon, a device has been produced by another person for the same purpose which was different from and inferior to that of the patent ; 26 and simultaneous suggestion by many is evidence that invention is lacking. 27 b. Supplying Long-Felt Want. A long-felt want and unsupplied need for means accomplishing the results of the patented device is evidence tending to show that its production called for an exercise of the inventive faculties. 28 e. Popularity of the Supposed Invention. The fact that the patented device meets with immediate public favor and displaces others for the same purpose on the market is evidence of utility and some evidence of invention, 29 but will not be & A. 121, 17 Off. Gaz. 909. Compare Butler v. Steckel, 27 Fed. 219. Conception of new method involving differ- ent principle. Where an existing process or device discloses what appear to be insuper- able objections to practical operations, it is persuasive evidence of invention that an improver has the foresight and courage to break away from such disclosure and con- ceive of some new method involving a differ- ent principle. American Graphophone Co. v. Universal Talking Mach. Mfg. Co., 151 Fed. 595, 81 C. C. A. 139 [reversing 145 Fed. 636, 643]. 26. Johnson Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 67 Fed. 940 [affirmed in 70 Fed. 244, 17 C. C. A. 88]. 27. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Lo- rain Steel Co., 117 Fed. 249, 54 C. C. A. 281; Haslem v. Pittsburg Plate-Glass Co., 68 Fed. 479; Bromley Bros. Carpet Co. v. Stewart, 51 Fed. 912. 28. Matter of Pennock, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 531; Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139, 14 S. Ct. 295, 38 L. ed. 103 [reversing 35 Fed. 579]; Brill v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 124 Fed. 778 [reversed on other grounds in 134 Fed. 580, 67 C. C. A. 380] ; Hale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Oneonta, etc., R. Co., 124 Fed. 514; Peters V. Union Biscuit Co., 120 Fed. 679 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 601, 60 C. C. A. 337]; Hallock v. Davison, 107 Fed. 482; Celluloid Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 85 Fed. 449; Steel-Clad Bath Co. v. Davison, 77 Fed. 736; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203 [affirming 69 Fed. 837] ; Taylor Burner Co. v. Diamond, 72 Fed. 182; Horn v. Bergner, 68 Fed. 428 [affirmed in 72 Fed. 687]; Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 59 Fed. 902; Watson t-. Stevens, 51 Fed. 757, 2 C. C. A. 500 [reversing 47 Fed. 117] ; Electrical Ac- cumulator Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Fed. 81; Guarantee Trust, etc., Co. v. New Haven Gas-Light Co., 39 Fed. 268; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. 684 [reversed on other grounds in 145 U. S. 226, 12 S. Ct. 939, 36 L. ed. 685]. Increasing work performed by machine one fourth shows invention. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177. Superiority indicates invention. Sawyer [III, E, 22, a] Spindle Co. v. Taylor, 69 Fed. 837 [affirmed in 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203]; Ex p. Arthur, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 563a; Judson r. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Many v. Sizer, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,056, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 17; Sey- mour v. Marsh, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,687, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 115, 2 Off. Gaz. 675, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 380. 29. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Office Spe- cialty Mfg. Co., 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201; Olin v. Timken, 155 U. S. 141, 15 S. Ct. 49, 39 L. ed. 100; Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139, 14 S. Ct. 295, 38 L. ed. 103; Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 149 U. S. 216, 13 S. Ct. 850, 37 L. ed. 707; Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 556, 13 S. Ct. 719', 37 L. ed. 558; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 13 S. Ct. 699, 37 L. ed. 552; Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587, 12 S. Ct. 598, 36 L. ed. 272; Mc- Creary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 141 U. S. 459, 12 S. Ct. 40, 35 L. ed. 817; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Magowan v. New York Belting, etc., Co., 141 U. S. 332, 12 S. Ct. 71, 35 L. ed. 781; Goodyear Tire, etc., Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 116 Fed. 363, 53 C. C. A. 583; Kinloch Tel Co. v. Western Electric Co., 113 Fed. 659, 51 C. C. A. 369; Kalamazoo R. Sup- ply Co. v. Duff Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 264, 51 C. C. A. 221; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Christy v. Hygeia Pneumatic Bicycle Saddle Co., 93 Fed. 965, 36 C. C. A. 31; Stevenson Co. v. McFassell, 90 Fed. 707, 33 C. C. A. 249 ; Morrin v. Law- ler, 90 Fed. 285; Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 982 ; Allington, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Globe Co., 89 Fed. 865; Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. American Electric Heating Corp., 82 Fed. 993; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203 [affirming 69 Fed. 837] ; Dueber Watch- Case Mfg. Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17, 21 C. C. A. 198; Brownson v. Dodson-Fisher- Brockmann Co., 71 Fed. 517; National Co. v. Belcher, 68 Fed. 665; Holmes v. Truman, 67 Fed. 542, 14 C. C. A. 517; Miller v. Handley, 61 Fed. 100; Saunders f. Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157; Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Habermann Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 375; Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle PATENTS [30 Cye.] 863 accepted as proof except in cases of doubt. 30 This is because the popularity may be due to extensive advertising or other tilings than its superiority. 31 F. Statutory Forfeiture Regardless of Intent l. IN GENERAL. Since the purpose of the patent system is to secure for the public of this country a knowledge of and the right to use new inventions and discoveries the inventor is required to proceed diligently in securing his patent under penalty of a forfeiture of his inchoate right. 32 Tliere are provisions in the statutes by which this forfeit- ure may occur contrary to the inventor's intent and without his knowledge. 33 2. PUBLICATION Two YEARS BEFORE APPLICATION. If the invention is described in a patent or printed publication in this country or abroad, with or without the knowledge or consent of the inventor, more than two years before his application for patent is filed, no valid patent can issue. 84 Co., 53 Fed. 113; Fox v. Perkins, 52 Fed. 205, 3 C. C. A. 32; Watson v. Stevens, 51 Fed. 757, 2 C. C. A. 500; Electrical Ac- cumulator Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 Fed. 81; Stearns v. Phillips, 43 Fed. 792; Chicopee Folding-Box Co. v. Nugent, 41 Fed. 139 [affirmed in 51 Fed. 229, 2 C. C. A. 165]; Parker v. Dickinson, 38 Fed. 413; Palmer v. Johnston, 34 Fed. 336; Good v. Bailey, 33 Fed. 42; Hill v. Biddle, 27 Fed. 560; Miller v. Pickering, 16 Fed. 540; West- ern Electric Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Electric Mfg. Co., 14 Fed. 691, 11 Biss. 427; Gott- fried I?. Crescent Brewing Co., 13 Fed. 479; Lindsay v. Stein, 10 Fed. 907, 20 Blatchf. 370; Shedd v. Washburn, 9 Fed. 904; Wash- burn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65; Strobridge v. Lindsay, 2 Fed. 692; Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 53, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Birdsall v. McDonald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 165, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Eames v. Cook, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,239, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 146; Judson v. Moore, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569, 1 Bond 285, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 544 ; Lorillard v. McDowell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,510, 2 Ban. & A. 531, 11 Off. Gaz. 640, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 461; Schaum v. Baker, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,440; Stanley Works 17. Sargent, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,289, 8 Blatchf. 344, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 443. Where the patent is void, extensive use is immaterial. Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 149 U. S. 216, 13 S. Ct. 850, 37 L. ed. 707 [affirming 37 Fed. 338]. No extent of use can cure the want of in- vention or make aggregation patentable. Voightmann v. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 133 Fed. 298 [affirmed in 148 Fed. 848, 78 C. C. A. 538]. 30. In re Smith, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 181; Durham v. Seymour, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 78; Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U. S. 539, 12 S. Ct. 66, 35 L. ed. 849; Mc- Clain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Voightmann v. Weis, etc., Cornice Co., 148 Fed. 848, 78 C. C. A. 538 [affirming 133 Fed. 298] ; General Electric Co. . Yost Electric Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 874; American Salesbook Co. t?. Carter-Grume Co., 125 Fed. 499 [reversed on other grounds in 129 Fed. 1004, 62 C. C. A. 679] ; American Sales Book Co. v. Bullivant, 117 Fed. 255, 54 C. C. A. 287; Standard Caster, etc., Co. V. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162, 51 C. C. A. 109; Goss Printing-Press Co. v. Scott, 103 Fed. 650 [reversed on other grounds in 108 Fed. 253, 47 C. C. A. 302] ; National Hollow Brake Beam Co. 17. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co., 99 Fed. 758; Lane v. Welds, 99 Fed. 286, 39 C. C. A. 528; Ingraham Co. f. E. N. Welch Mfg. Co., 92 Fed. 1019, 35 C. C. A. 163; Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Co- lumbia Pneumatic Wagon Wheel Co., 91 Fed. 978; McEwan Bros. Co. v. McEwan, 91 Fed. 787; Perry v. Revere Rubber Co., 86 Fed. 633; Michigan Stove Co. v. Fuller-Warren Co., 81 Fed. 376; Schwarzwaelder 17. Detroit, 77 Fed. 886; Klein v. Seattle, 77 Fed. 200, 23 C. C. A. 114 [affirming 63 Fed. 702] ; Consolidated Electric Mfg. Co. v. Holtzer, 67 Fed. 907, 15 C. C. A. 63; Saunders t\ Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157; Wash- burn, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Grinnell Wire Co., 24 Fed. 23; Wilson Packing Co. 17. Chicago Packing, etc., Co., 9 Fed. 547, 10 Biss. 559; Dion v. Dupuis, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 465. That success is important only in case of doubt see Falk Mfg. Co. 17. Missouri R. Co., 103 Fed. 295, 43 C. C. A. 240. 31. Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158; Doig v. Morgan Mach. Co., 122 Fed. 460, 59 C. C. A. 616; Dowagiac v. Superior Drill Co., 115 Fed. 886, 53 C. C. A. 36; Dueber Watch Case Co. 17. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17, 21 C. C. A. 198 [reversing 71 Fed. 186] ; Stahl 17. Williams, 64 Fed. 121; Fox i?. Perkins, 52 Fed. 205, 3 C. C. A. 32; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleve- land Target Co., 47 Fed. 725. And see Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Mfg. Co. i?. Van Val- kenburg, 72 Fed. 277 [affirmed in 78 Fed. 926, 24 C. C. A. 416], in which it was said that popularity may be due to workmanship, attractive display, or advertising. 32. In re Mower, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144; Mason V. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Kendall 17. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. 17. Duplex Printing-Press Co., 86 Fed. 315; Von Schmidt v. Bowers, 80 Fed. 121, 25 C. C. A. 323; Matthes v. Burt, 114 Off. Gaz. 764. 33. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886; Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609. 34. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886, 4920 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 3382, 3394], as amended by Act, March 3, 1897. [HI, F, 2] 864 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS 3. FOREIGN PATENT. If the inventor first secures or allows his representatives to secure a patent upon the invention abroad on an application filed more than twelve months before his application in this country no valid patent can issue here. 35 The limitation is four months in case of design patents. 86 4. CONCEALMENT OF INVENTION. If the inventor conceals the invention from the public for a long period of time after he lias perfected it, and in the mean time some other party makes the invention, the invention becomes public prop- erty and cannot be patented by any one, 37 or is to be patented to the one who was really second to invent, but first to give to the public. 88 5. DATE OF APPLICATION. The date of application controlling in considering public use or sale and publication is the date of application in this country, 39 or the date of application abroad within twelve months of the application here, pro- vided the foreign country is a member of the international convention or has similar treaty relations with this country. 40 6. RENEWAL OR SUBSTITUTE APPLICATION. Where an application here is forfeited and renewed, 41 or is filed as a substitute for and continuation of a prior applica- tion, 42 the original filing date controls ; but to obtain the benefit of the original 35. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382], as amended March 3, 1903. Under the act of March 3, 1897, the limitation was seven months and that applies to applications filed between Jan. 1, 1898, and the passage of the act of 1903. In re Swinburne, 19 App. Gas. (D. C.) 565. Application of statute. The act applies only to patents granted after Jan. 1, 1898. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; Pa trie v. Sylvester, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 573. 36. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382], as amended March 3, 1903. 37. In re Mower, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68 ; Kindall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252. The inventor may for- feit his rights as an inventor by a wilful or negligent postponement of his claims, or by an attempt to withhold the benefit of his improvement from the public until a similar or the same improvement shall have been made and introduced by others. Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165. Where due to poverty, concealment and failure to apply for patent is not a bar. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Crofut, 24 Fed. 796; Ayling v. Hull, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 686, 2 Cliff. 494; Sprague v. Adriance, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,248, 3 Ban. & A. 124, 14 Off. Gaz. 308. 38. Brown v. Blood, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 216; Thomson i/. Weston, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 373; Warner v. Smith, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) Ill; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Berg v. Thistle, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,337; Bullock Printing-Press Co. v. Jones, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,132, 3 Ban. & A. 195, 13 Off. Gaz. 124; Consolidated Fruit- Jar Co. v. Wright, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,135, 12 Blatchf. 149, 1 Ban. & A. 320, 6 Off. Gaz. 327; Marcy v. Trotter, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,063; Snowden v. Pierce, 22 Fed. Cas. No. [HI, F, 3] 13,151, 2 Hayw. & H. 386; Spear v. Belson, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,223, McArthur Pat. Cas. 699; U. S. Rifle, etc., Co. f. Whitney Arms Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,793, 2 Ban. & A. 493, 14 Blatchf. 94, 11 Off. Gaz. 373; Walker v. Forbes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,069; Matthes v. Burt, 114 Off. Gaz. 764. 39. Date of filing in patent office and not date of execution controls. Campbell v. Nevr York, 35 Fed. 504, 1 L. R. A. 48. The English application dates from pro- visional specification. In re Swinburn, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565. 40. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382], as amended March 3, 1903. 41. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4897 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3386]; Cain t?. Park, 14 App. Cas. (D C.) 42; Ligowski Clay- Pigeon Co. v. American Clay-Bird Co., 34 Fed. 328. The renewed application confers no right in addition to that of the first application. It confers no right as against a prior in- ventor who happened to file his application subsequent to that of the second inventor. At most the first application could only acquire an inchoate right as against a prior inventor, dependent upon it being made to appear that the first inventor had either abandoned his invention or lost the right to it by the want of reasonable diligence in perfecting it and making application for a patent. Christensen v. Noyes, 90 Off. Gaz. 227. 42. Godfrey v. Eames, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 317, 17 L. ed. 684; Stimpson v. West Chester R. Co., 4 How. (U. S.) 380, 11 L. ed. 1020; L. E. Waterman Co. v. McCutcheon, 127 Fed. 1020, 61 C. C. A. 653; L. E. Waterman v. Forsyth, 121. Fed. 103; International Tooth-Crown Co. v. Richmond, 30 Fed. 775; Graham v. McCormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39; Bell v. Daniels, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,247, 1 Bond 212, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 372; Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,379, 9 Blatchf. 50, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 23; Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, 7 Fed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 865 date, the renewal must be in accordance with the terms of the law ; 43 and where there is unreasonable delay between applications, the date of the second controls. 44 7. DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS. The principles stated in the preceding section apply in the case of divisional applications. 45 8. PRIOR PUBLIC USE OR SALE a. As Bar to Patent. By the provisions of the statutes, if the invention was in public use or on sale in this country with or with- out the consent of the inventor more than two years before his application was tiled the grant of a patent is barred. 46 It must, however, have been in public use Cas. No. 3,810, 2 Cliff. 555, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 87; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,597, 1 Ban. & A. 384, 6 Off. Gaz. 154; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Smith, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,598, 1 Ban. & A. 201, Holmes 354, 5 Off. Gaz. 585 [.affirmed in 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 952] ; Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,382, 2 Ban. & A. 221, 9 Off. Gaz. 408; Howe v. Newton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,771, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Johnsen v. Fass- man, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630; Matthews v. Wade, 16 Fed. Cas No. 9,292, McArthur Pat. Cas. 143; Rich v. Lippin- cott, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,758, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 31; Singer v. Brauns- dorf, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,897, 7 Blatchf. 521; Smith v. Prior, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,095, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 469, 2 Sawy. 461, 4 Off. Gaz. 633; Weston v. White, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,459, 2 Ban. & A. 364, 13 Blatchf. 447. Withdrawal due to mistake of patent office will not forfeit rights. Hayden v. James, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,260. Application abandoned before another is filed cannot avail the patentee. Carty v. Kellogg, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 542; Hayes- Young Tie Plate Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co., 130 Fed. 900; Lindsay v. Stein, 10 Fed. 907, 20 Blatchf. 370; Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,379, 9 Blatchf. 50, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 23; Rich v. Lippincott, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,758, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. For excusable delay in renewing applica- tion see Colgate v. Western Union Tel. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,995, 4 Ban. & A. 36, 15 Blatchf. 365, 14 Off. Gaz. 943; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,603, 1 Ban. & A. 568, 1 Flipp. 388, 7 Off. Gaz. 41; Howes v. McNeal, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,789, 3 Ban. & A. 376, 15 Blatchf. 103, 15 Off. Gaz. 608. 43. Ostergren v. Tripler, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 557; Christensen v. Noyes, 90 Off. Gaz. 223. 44. U. S. Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53; Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Bellaire Stamp- ing Co., 27 Fed. 377; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 26 Fed. 104; Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,379, 9 Blatchf. 50, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 23; Ex p. Dedericks, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,734; Ex p. Raymond, 20 Fed. Cas. No. ll,592a; Wickersham v. Singer, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,610, McArthur Pat. Cas. 645. [55] 45. Stirling Co. v. St. Louis Brewing As- soc., 79 Fed. 80; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; Frankfort Whisky Process Co. v. Mill Creek Distilling Co., 37 Fed. 533; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 138. 46. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886, 4920; Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267, 8 S. Ct. 101, 31 L. ed. 160; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68; Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 917; Hutchinson v. Everett, 26 Fed. 531; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. V. Atlas Bag Co., 6 Fed. 398; Arnold v. Bishop, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 552, Cranch Pat. Dec. 103, McArthur Pat. Cas. 27; Blackinton v. Douglass, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,470, McArthur Pat. Cas. 622; Cleveland v. Towle, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,888, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 525; Cowperwaithe v. Gill, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,298; Ellithorp v. Robertson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,410, McArthur Pat. Cas. 634; Hunt v. Howe, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,891, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 366; Justice v. Jones, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,588, McArthur Pat. Cas. 635; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 4 Cliff. 424, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Lovering v. Dutcher, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,553, 2 Hayw. & H. 367; Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass, etc., Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,041, 4 Ban. & A. 612, 9 Reporter 337 [affirmed in 108 U. S 462, 2 S. Ct. 860, 27 L. ed. 793]; Monce v. Woodworth, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,706, 4 Ban. & A. 307, 19 Off. Gaz. 998; Rugg v. Haines, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,114, McArthur Pat. Cas. 420; Tappan v. National Bank-Note Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,100. The rule is inflexible without regard to ex- cuses for delay. Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609; Sis- son v. Gilbert, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,912, 9 Blatchf. 185, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 109. Contra, see McMillan v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275. The rule applies to designs as well as me- chanical inventions. Anderson v. Monroe, 55 Fed. 407; Anderson v. Eiler, 46 Fed. 777 [affirmed in 50 Fed. 775,. 1 C. C. A. 659] ; Theberath i\ Rubber, etc., Harness Trimming Co., 15 Fed. 246 ; In re Tournier, 94 Off. Gaz. 2166. In England any use by inventor or others in realm before patent is a bar. Househill Coal, etc., Co. v. Neilson, 9 Cl. & F. 788, 8 Eng. Reprint 616. The use must be public. Heath v. Smith, 2 C. L. R. 1584, 3 E. & B. 256, 18 Jur. 601, 23 L. J. Q. B. 166, 2 Wkly. Rep. 200, 77 E. C. L. 256; Caldwell v. Van- [III, F, 8, a] 866 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS or on sale for more than two years prior to the application to bar the grant of a patent. 47 b. Nature of Use Sufficient to Bar Patent (i) IN GENERAL. The bar of public use arises from use by the inventor himself or by others, 48 but in either case it must be such as makes the invention accessible to some members of the public. 49 Public use, however, does not mean a general adoption or use by the public, but a use in public, as distinguished from a secret use. 50 Exhibition of a design is a public use. 51 (n) SINGLE INSTANCE SUFFICIENT. A single instance of public use by a single individual will operate as a bar. 53 General and continuous use is unnecessary. 53 (in) KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE INVENTOR. The bar arises whether or not the inventor knows of or consents to the public use. 54 vlissengen, 9 Hare 415, 16 Jur. 115, 21 L. J. Ch. 97, 41 Eng. Ch. 415, 68 Eng. Reprint 571; Carpenter v. Smith, 11 L. J. Exch. 213, 9 M. & W. 300. In Canada public use with the inventor's consent before application is a bar. Bona- than v. Bowmanville Furniture Mfg. Co., 31 U. C. Q. B. 413. 47. Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Babcock V. Degener, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 698, McArthur Pat. Cas. 607; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240 [modi- fied in 16 How. 480, 14 L. ed 1024]; Mc- Millan v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275; Mel- lus v. Silsbee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,404, 4 Mason 108, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 506; Root v. Ball, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,035, 4 McLean 177, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 513; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167; Sides v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,842. 48. National Phonograph Co. v. Lambert Co., 125 Fed. 388 [affirmed in 142 Fed. 164, 73 C. C. A. 382] ; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Lorain Steel Co., 117 Fed. 249, 54 C. C. A. 281; Pennock v. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10.941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 4 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327]; Sisson v. Gilbert, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,912, 9 Blatchf. 185, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 109. Where the inventor for pay teaches others to use the invention it is public use. Inter- national Tooth-Crown Co. v. Gaylord, 140 U. S. 55, 11 S. Ct. 716, 35 L. ed. 347. In England use bars a patent in Scotland. Brown v. Annandale, 8 Cl. & F. 437, 8 Eng. Reprint 170; In re Robinson, 5 Moore P. C. 65, 13 Eng. Reprint 414. Making without sale after application may not constitute a bar. Betts v. Menzies, 5 Jur. N. S. 1164, 28 L. J. Q. B. 361; Summers v. Abell, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 532. 49. Indiana Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Chair Co., 90 Fed. 488; American Roll-Paper Co. v. Weston, 59 Fed. 147, 8 C. C. A. 56. 50. Blackinton v. Douglass, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,470, McArthur Pat. Cas. 622; Elli- thorp v. Robertson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,409, McArthur Pat. Cas. 585; Henry v. Provi- dence Tool Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,384, 3 Ban. & A. 501, 14 Off. Gaz. 855; Hunt v. Howe, [III, F, 8, a] 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,891, McArthur Pat. Cas. 366. Use in shop where the workmen are under no pledge of secrecy is a public use. Per- kins v. Nashua Card, etc., Co., 2 Fed. 451. 51. Young v. Clipper Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 560 [affirmed in 130 Fed. 150, 64 C. C. A. 502]. Exhibition of an experimentally constructed machine by the inventor to a non-paying au- dience is not a public use. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 140 Fed. 860 [affirmed in 145 Fed. 350, 76 C. C. A. 180]. 52. Clark Pomace-Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 17 Fed. 79, 21 Blatchf. 376; Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. 597; Egbert v. Lippmann, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,306, 3 Ban. & A. 408, 15 Blatchf. 295, 14 Off. Gaz. 822 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 333, 26 L. ed. 755]; Dalby v. Lynes, 71 Off. Gaz. 1317; Worley v. Loker Tobacco Co., 21 Off. Gaz. 559; Househill Coal, etc., Co. v. Neilson, 9 Cl. & F. 788, 8 Eng. Reprint 616; Hessin v. Coppin, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 629; Abell v. McPherson, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 23. Three articles made and used as samples constitute a bar. Dalby v. Lynes, 64 Fed. 376. 53. Flomerfelt v. Newwitter, 88 Fed. 696; Clisby v. Reese, 88 Fed. 645, 32 C. C. A. 80. 54. In re Drawbaugh, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 236; Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267, 8 S. Ct. 101, 31 L. ed. 160; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673. In Canada public use one year is a bar with or without consent. Patric r. Sylvester, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 573. Under the former law, knowledge and con- sent were necessary. Davis v. Fredericks, 19 Fed. 99, 21 Blatchf. 556; Emery v. Cava- nagh, 17 Fed. 242; Campbell r. New York, 9 Fed. 500, 35 Fed. 504, 1 L. R. A. 48; Carroll v. Gambrill, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,454, McArthur Pat. Cas. 581 ; Draper v. Wattles, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,073, 3 Ban. & A. 618, 16 Off. Gaz. 629; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; Russell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mallory, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,166, 10 Blatchf. 140, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 632, 2 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 867 (iv) INVENTION MUST BE COMPLETE. To constitute public use the inven- tion must have been complete. 55 This does not mean, however, that the machine embodying it must have been perfect, but merely that it shall be sufficiently per- fect to be practically applied to its intended purpose. 56 (v) EXPERIMENTAL USE. Use for purposes of experiment having in view the perfection of the invention is not a public use, although it occurs in public, 57 and such experimental use may continue for many years without operating as a bar, 58 according to the character of the particular invention and the time necessary to develop and perfect it and determine its practical efficiency. 59 (vi) SECRET USE. Use of the invention in secret either by the inventor or his agents under an injunction of secrecy is not a public use. 60 But permitting another to use the invention without any injunction of secrecy is public use, although the use may have been concealed from others. 61 (vn) NATURAL AND INTENDED USE. Use of an invention in public, how- ever, in its natural and intended way is a public use, 62 although from its nature it is concealed from the general view of the public. 63 (vm) USE FOR PROFIT. When an invention is used for the purpose of Off. Gaz. 495; Ryan v. Goodwin, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,186, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 725, 3 Sumn. 514; Whitney V. Emmett, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,585, Baldw. 303, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. 55. Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. Newell Universal Mill Co., 109 Fed. 269; Peeney v. Lakeview, 35 Fed. 586; Graham v. McCormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 241. 56. Newark Mach. Co. v. Hargett, 28 Fed. 567; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 241. 57. Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pave- ment Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; American Caramel Co. v. Mills, 149 Fed. 743, 79 C. C. A. 449 [reversing 138 Fed. 142] ; Comptograph Co. v. Universal Accoun- tant Mach. Co., 142 Fed. 539 [reversed on other grounds in 146 Fed. 9-81, 77 C. C. A. 227]; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Lo- rain Steel Co., 117 Fed. 249, 54 C. C. A. 281; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Saranac Lake Electric Light Co., 108 Fed. 221; Pacific Cable R. Co. v. Butte City St. R. Co., 55 Fed. 760 [reversed in 60 Fed. 410, 9 C. C. A. 41] ; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v. Standard Paper-Bag Co., 30 Fed. 63; Rail- way Register Mfg. Co. v, Broadway, etc., R. Co., 22 Fed. 655, 26 Fed. 522; Birdsall v. McDonald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 1G5, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Jennings v Pierce, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,283, 3 Ban. & A. 361, 15 Blatchf. 42; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630; Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,453, 1 Ban. & A. 470, 10 Blatchf. 292, 6 Off. Gaz. 927, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 16; Morris v. Huntington, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,831, 1 Paine 348, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 448; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441; Stanley v. Hewitt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,285; U. "S. Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,793, 2 Ban. & A. 493, 14 Blatchf. 94, 11 Off. Gaz. 373 [affirmed in 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53] ; Winans v. Schenectady, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,865, 2 Blatchf. 279; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273; Morgan t?. Seaward, 1 Jur. 527, 6 L. J. Exch. 153, M. & H. 55, 2 M. & W. 544; Conway v. Ottawa Electric R. Co., 8 Can. Exch. 432. Unavoidable disclosure in experiments is no bar. In re Newall, 4 C. B. N. S. 269, 4 Jur. N. S. 562, 27 L. J. C. P. 337, 93 E. C. L. 269; Bentley v. Fleming, 1 C. & K. 587, 47 E. C. L. 587; Hills v. London Gas Light Co., 5 H. & N. 312, 29 L. J. Exch. 409. 58. Use of pavement on public street six years for experiment not public use. Eliza- beth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000. 59. Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,382, 2 Ban. & A. 221, 9 Off. Gaz. 408. Use without inventor's knowledge during experiments by him is no bar. Campbell v. New York, 47 Fed. 515. 60. Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 53, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Hunt v. Howe, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,891, McArthur Pat. Cas. 366. 61. Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass, etc., Co., 108 U. S. 462, 2 S. Ct. 860, 27 L. ed. 793; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pave- ment Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000. 62. Brush v. Condit, 132 U. S. 39, 10 S. Ct. 1, 33 L. ed. 251 ; Hall v. Macneale, 107 U. S. 90, 2 S. Ct. 73, 27 L. ed. 367 ; Thomson- Houston Electric Co. v. Lorain Steel Co., 110 Fed. 654 [affirmed in 117 Fed. 249, 54 C. C. A. 281]; Lettelier v. Mann, 91 Fed. 917. Use in employer's factory is public use. In re Tournier, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 481; Worley v. Loker Tobacco Co., 104 U. S. 340, 26 L. ed. 821. 63. Brush v. Condit, 132 U. S. 39, 19 S. Ct. 1, 33 L. ed. 251 ; Hall v. Macneale, 107 U. S. 90, 2 S. Ct. 73, 27 L. ed. 367; Perkins v. Nashua Card, etc., Co., 2 Fed. 451. [Ill, F, 8, b, (vm)] 868 [30 Cye.] PATENTS experiment it is not rendered a public use by the fact that a profit was derived from its use. 64 But where protit was the controlling cause of the use and the experiment was merely incidental the grant of a patent is barred. 65 (ix) USE IN A FOREIGN' COUNTRY. Use abroad is not a public use which will invalidate a patent in the United States. To constitute a bar the use must be in this country. 66 In Canada public use abroad before the invention by the patentee invalidates the patent. 67 e. On Sale (i) IN GENERAL. An invention is on sale when articles or machines embodying it are made and offered for sale or are sold, 68 but an offer or agreement to make and deliver an invention not already made and tested does not place it on sale. 69 An assignment of the right to secure a patent is not placing the invention on sale. 70 (n) SINGLE SALE SUFFICIENT. A single unrestricted sale is sufficient to con- stitute placing the invention on sale. 71 (in) OFFER FOR SALE. An offer to sell articles previously made and tested embodying the invention places it on sale, although no actual sales were made. 72 (iv) SALE FOR EXPERIMENT. There may be an actual sale without placing the invention on sale within the meaning of the law where done for the purpose of securing an adequate test of the invention. 73 There is a clear distinction between sales for the purpose of testing the market and sales to test the invention 64. Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 241), 8 S. Ct. 122, 31 I*, ed. 141 ; Swain v. Holyoke Mach. Co.* 109 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265; Jennings v. Pierce, 13 Fed. Gas. No. 7,283, 3 Ban. & A. 361, 15 Blatchf. 42. 65. Root r. Third Ave. R. Co., 146 U. S. 210, 13 S. Ct. 100, 36 L. ed. 946; Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. .Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 8 S. Ct. 122, 31 L. ed. 141 [reverting 12 Fed. 721]; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68. 66. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4923 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3396]; Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587, 12 S. Ct. 598, 36 L. ed. 272; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 163; American Sulphite Pulp Co. t-. Rowland Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986 [reversed on other grounds in 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500] ; Worswick Mfg. Co. v. Steiger, 17 Fed. 250; Roemer r. Logowitz, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,996. And see supra, III, B, 5. 67. Vanorman v. Leonard, 2 U. C. Q. B. 72. 68. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68; Swain v. Holyoke Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265; Covert v. Covert, 106 Fed. 183 [affirmed, in 115 Fed. 493, 53 C. C. A. 225]; Delemater v. Heath, 58 Fed. 414, 7 C. C. A. 279; Plimpton v. Winslow, 14 Fed. 919; Kells v. McKenzie, 9 Fed. 284; Burton ?. Greenville, 3 Fed. 642; In re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904; Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mellon, 66 Off. Gaz. 173; Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 569. In Canada the rule is that sale one year before application does not constitute a bar unless the sale was with the inventor's con- sent. Patric v. Sylvester, 23 Grant. Ch. tU. C.) 573. 69. Sparkman v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,208, 1 Blatchf. 205, Fish. Pat. Rep. 110, [III, F, 8, b, (VIII)] 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 122; In re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904. If something remains to be done to prop- erty by the vendor, an agreement to sell it is merely executory. Hatch v. Standard Oil Co., 100 U. S. 124, 25 L. ed. 554. 70. U. S. Electric Lighting Co. v. Consoli- dated Electric Light Co., 33 Fed. 869. 71. Swain v. Holyoke Mach. Co., 102 Fed. 910 [affirmed in 109 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265]; Delemater v. Heath, 58 Fed. 414, 7 C. C. A. 279; Schneider v. Thill, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,470a, 5 Ban. & A. 565; In re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904; Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 569; Hessen v. Coppin, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 629; Abell v. McPherson, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 23. 72. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed- Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154; Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 S. Ct. 970, 29 L. ed. 1017; Coflin v. Ogden, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 120, 21 L. ed. 821; Mack v. Spencer Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 819; Wright v. Postel, 44 Fed. 352; -duett f?. Clafin, 30 Fed. 921; Plimpton v. Winslow, 14 Fed. 919; Washburn v. Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 3 Story 122, 2 Robb Pat. Caa. 206 ; Waterman v. Thomson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,260, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; Mullins v. Hart, 3 C. & K. 297. Leaving one article at a store for sale places the invention on sale. Covert v. Covert, 106 Fed. 183 [affirmed on othlt grounds in 115 Fed. 493. 44 C. C. A. 225]. 73. Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sprague. ! U. S. 249, 8 S. Ct. 122, 31 L. ed. 141 ; S\\.i v. Holyoke Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 154, Js C. C. A. 265; Delemater v. Heath, 58 Fed. 414, 7 C. C. A. 279; Harmon v. Struthera, 43 led. 437, 57 Fed. 637; Innis v. Oil City Boiler Works, 22 Fed. 780; Graham r. ( nova Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 13 In re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904; Henry . Francestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 5G9. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 869 itself. The former is a trader's and not an inventor's experiment and does not carve an exception out of the statute. 74 (v) CONDITIONAL SALE. The sale must be absolute to constitute a bar, and where the inventor retains a certain control over the machine for purposes of test it is not on sale. 75 (vi) PERFECTED INVENTION. It is not necessary that the machine sold shall be perfect or well made mechanically but it is sufficient that it is operative. 76 (vn) BURDEN OF PROOF. The presumption is against two years public use or sale, and the burden is upon the one alleging it to establish it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 77 Where, however, the use or sale is established the burden is upon the patentee to show that it was for experiment. 78 G. Abandonment of Invention 1. IN GENERAL. The abandonment of an invention is the relinquishment by the inventor of the inchoate right to secure a patent upon an invention made by him and the consequent dedication of that invention to the free and unlimited use of the public. 79 An invention may be abandoned at any time before or after application; 80 and the right once aban- doned cannot be resumed. 81 The benefit of the abandonment, however, inures to 74. Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mellon, 58 Fed. 705, 7 C. C. A. 439 ; Consolidated Fruit- Jar Co. v. Wright, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,135, 1 Ban. & A. 320, 12 Blatchf. 149, 6 Off. Gaz. C27 [.affirmed in 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68]. 75. Swain v. Holyoke Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265; Delemater v. Heath, 58 Fed. 414, 7 C. C. A. 279; Henry r. Francestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 569. re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904. 76. Newark Mach. Co. v. Hargett, 28 Fed. 567; Lyman v. Maypole, 19 Fed. 735; Gra- ham v. McCormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39; American Hide, etc., Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503; Henry v. Franeestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 569. 77. Washburn, etc., Mfg-. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154; Albright V. Longfeld, 131 Fed. 473; Timolat V. Philadelphia Pneu- matic Tool Co., 131 Fed. 257; Durfee 17. Bawo, 118 Fed. 853; Loew Filter Co. v. Ger- man-American Filter Co., 107 Fed. 949, 47 C. C. A. 94 ; Brown v. Zaubitz, 105 Fed. 242 ; Flomerfelt v. Newwitter, 88 Fed. 696; Mast v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 327, 27 C. C. A. 191; Kraatz v. Tieman, 79 Fed. 322 ; Dodge v. Post, 76 Fed. 807 ; Oval Wood Pish Co. v. Sandy Creek, N. Y. Wood Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 285; Converse v. Matthews, 58 Fed. 246; Francis v. Kirkpatrick, 52 Fed. 824 ; Wetherell v. Keith, 27 Fed. 364 ; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Rathbone, 26 Fed. 262 ; Drey- fus v. Schneider, 25 Fed. 481; Innis v. Oil City Boiler Works, 22 Fed. 780; Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 20 Fed. 848; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65; American Hide, etc., Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503; Andrews v. Carmen, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 371, 2 Ban. & A. 277, 13 Blatchf. 307, 9 Off. Gaz. 1011; Brown v. Whittemore, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,033, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 524, 2 Off. Gaz. 248; Jones v. Bewail, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7.495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [re- versed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; Parker v. Remhoff, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,747, 3 Ban. & A. 550, 17 Blatchf. 206, 14 Off. Gaz. 601 ; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. For proof held insufficient see Beedle P. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, 7 S. Ct. 1090, 30 L. ed. 1074; Anderson v. Monroe, 55 Fed. 396 {re- versed on other grounds in 58 Fed. 398, 7 C. C. A. 272]; Haughey v. Meyer, 48 Fed. 679 ; Zinsser v. Kremer, 39 Fed. Ill; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Rathbone, 26 Fed. 262. 78. Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 8 S. Ct. 122, 31 L. ed. 141; Thom- son-Houston Electric Co. v. Lorain Steel Co., 117 Fed. 249, 54 C. C. A. 281; Swain f. Holyoke Mach. Co., 103 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265, 111 Fed. 408, 49 C. C. A. 419; Lettelier 17. Mann, 91 Fed. 917; In re Mills, 117 Off. Gaz. 904; Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Co., 17 Off. Gaz. 569. Insufficient proof that use was for experi- ment see Root v. Third Ave. R. Co., 146 U. S. 210, 13 S. Ct. 100, 36 L. ed. 946. 79. U. S Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53; Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S 92, 24 L. ed. 68; Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292, 8 L. ed. 689. 80. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; American Hide, etc., Splitting, etc., Mach. Co. v. Ameri- can Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. An invention may be abandoned within two years before application as well as prior to that time. Mast v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 71 Fed. 701 ; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 241. 81. McCay v. Burr, 6 Pa. St. 147, 47 Am. Dec. 441; Gill v. U. S., 160 U. S. 426, 16 S. Ct. 322, 40 L. ed. 480; Woodbury Patent [HI, G, 1] 870 [30 Cye.] PATENTS the public and not to a later inventor. 82 Abandonment to the public is not confined to reissues, but statute applies to all parents. 83 2. QUESTION OF INTENT. Abandonment involves a consideration of the inven- tor's intent, but the intent may be presumed from conduct as well as from words. 84 3. EXPRESS ABANDONMENT. Declarations by the inventor manifesting an intent not to secure a patent upon his invention amounts to abandonment. 85 4. ABANDONMENT BY CONDUCT. Where the inventor acquiesces in the use of his invention by others and his conduct is such as to lead the public to believe that he does not intend to secure a patent he has abandoned it. 86 So the acceptance of a patent with claims narrowed to exclude matter cited by the patent office as an anticipation is an abandonment thereof to the public; 87 and one who retires from an interference proceeding and withdraws his claim for the specific element forming the subject of the interference is thereafter precluded from claiming such element under his patent. 88 Publication is not abandonment, 89 and merely per- mitting others to use an invention before application for a patent does not amount to abandonment. 90 And mere delay in applying for a patent is not abandonment. 91 Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 68; Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292, 8 L. ed. 689; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 7 L. ed. 327; Holmes Electric Pro- tective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., 33 Fed. 254; American Hide, etc., Split- ting, etc., Mach. Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 284, Holmes 503; Batten v. Taggert, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,107, 2 Wall. Jr. 101; Colt v. Massa- chusetts Arms Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,030, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 108; Mellus v. Silsbee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,404, 4 Mason 108, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 506 ; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252; Whip- pie v. Baldwin Mfg. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,514, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40. Estoppel. Where an inventor has declared a purpose to abandon his invention and not to take out a patent, he will be estopped from afterward asserting his rights as against any person who has acted on the faith of such declaration. Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. 82. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68 ; Pickering v. McCullough, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,121, 3 Ban. & A. 279, 6 Reporter 101, 13 Off. Gaz. 818 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. ed. 749] ; Sturtevant v. Greenough, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,579. 83. Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 26 Fed. 522. 84. Must be declaration or act showing in- tent. Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, 7 S. Ct. 1090, 30 L. ed. 1074; U. S. Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53; Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292, 8 L. ed. 689; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Burdon Wire, etc., [HI, G, 1] Co. v. Williams, 128 Fed. 927; Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,414, 1 Biss. 468, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 523. 85. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,414, 1 Biss. 468, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 523. For declarations not amounting to aban- donment see Pitts 1;. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. 86. Mast v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 71 Fed. 701; Graver v. Weyhrich, 31 Fed. 607 [affirmed in 124 U. S. 196, 8 S. Ct. 459, 31 L. ed. 389] ; Carroll v. Gambrill, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,454 ; McArthur Pat. Cas. 581; U. S. Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,793, 2 Ban. & A. 493, 14 Blatchf. 94, 11 Off. Gaz. 373 [affirmed in 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53] ; Wickersham v. Singer, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,610, McArthur Pat. Cas. 645. And see Universal Adding Mach. Co. v. Comptograph Co., 146 Fed. 981, 77 C. C. A. 227 [reversing 142 Fed. 539]. Acquiescence in public use may be aban- donment. Mellus v. Silsbee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,404, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 506, 4 Mason 108; Pennock v. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 4 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327]. 87. Maier v. Bloom, 95 Fed. 159. 88. Shoemaker v. Merrow, 61 Fed. 945, 10 C. C. A. 181 [reversing 59 Fed. 120]. 89. Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566. 90. McCay v. Burr, 6 Pa. St. 147, 47 Am. Dec. 441 ; Mast v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 327, 27 C. C. A. 191 [reversing 71 Fed. 701] ; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240 [reversed in part in 16 How. 480, 14 L. ed. 1024]. 91. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 871 5. NECESSITY OF DISCLOSURE TO PUBLIC. There can be no abandonment to the public unless the complete invention has been disclosed to the public. 92 6. ABANDONED EXPERIMENTS. An abandonment of experiments upon an incom- plete and imperfect invention is not a dedication of that invention to the IT 03 public. 93 7. FAILURE TO CLAIM IN PATENT. What is disclosed in a patent and not claimed therein is presumedly not novel or is dedicated to the public by the patentee. 94 The presumption, however, is rebutted if the patentee has another application pending in the patent office claiming it, 95 or if he files such application promptly. 96 Matter erased from one application and presented in a second after grant of a patent is not abandoned. 97 8. ABANDONMENT OF APPLICATION. A party may abandon a particular applica- tion for patent without abandoning the intent to secure a patent at some time 68 ; Appert v. Brownsville Plate Glass Co., 144 Fed. 115; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164; U. S. Electric Lighting Co. v. Consolidated Electric Light Co., 33 Fed. 869; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359; Birdsall v. McDonald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 165, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Heath v. Hildreth, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,309; Knox v. Loweree, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,910, 1 Ban. & A. 589, 6 Off. Gaz. 802 ; Perry v. Cornell, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,002, McArthur Pat. Cas. 68; Russell, etc., Mfg. Co. r. Mallory, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,166, 10 Blatchf. 140, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 632, 2 Off. Gaz. 495; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440; Yearsley v. Brookfield, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, McArthur Pat. Cas. 193. Date of application during experiment not abandonment. Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jor- dan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177. If action is taken within the time fixed by statute, delay in prosecution of application in patent office not abandonment. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72; Adams v. Jones, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 57, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 527, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 73; U. S. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 79 Off. Gaz. 1362. Effect of intervening rights. Long delay in applying for a patent where there are inter- vening rights is abandonment. Fefel v. Stocker, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 317; In re Mower, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252. 92. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Ross v. Montana Union R. Co., 45 Fed. 424; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359 ; Babcock v. Dege- ner, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 698, McArthur Pat. Cas. 607. 93. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72; Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714. And see supra, III, C, 4, e. 94. In re Millett, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 16 S. Ct. 53, 40 L. ed. 225; Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 15 S. Ct. 118, 39 L. ed. 153; McClain v. Ort- mayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 10 S. Ct. 884, 34 L. ed. 168; Parker, etc., Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 8 S. Ct. 38, 31 L. ed. 100; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665; Miller v. Bridge- port Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 78-3 ; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; Campbell v. H. T. Conde Implement Co., 74 Fed. 745; McBride v. Kingman, 72 Fed. 908; Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., 33 Fed. 254; Swift v. Jenks, 19 Fed. 641 ; Batten v. Taggert, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,107, 2 Wall. Jr. 101 [reversed on other grounds in 17 How. 74, 15 L. ed. 37]. A claim to a specific combination and a failure to claim other combinations apparent on the face of the patent is a dedication of them to the public. Bantz v. Frantz, 105 U. S. 160, 26 L. ed. 1013; Miller v. Bridge- port Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783 ; Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 360 [af- firmed in 62 Fed. 404, 10 C. C. A. 441]. Claim to a combination is held to amount to a disclaimer of the separate elements. Wells v. Curtis, 66 Fed. 318, 13 C. C. A. 494; Rowell v. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217 [affirmed in 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906]. Mere disclosure without claim will not pre- vent subsequent patent. Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Marble, 19 Fed. 307; Graham 17. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 138. Description of process in machine patent is not abandonment. Eastern Paper-Bag Co. 17. Nixon, 35 Fed. 752; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v. Standard Paper-Bag Co., 30 Fed. 63. 95. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121 ; Suffolk Mfg. Co. t7. Hayden, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315, 18 L. ed. 76; Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 142 Fed. 970, 74 C. C. A. 232; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 140 Fed. 860 [affirmed in 145 Fed. 350, 76 C. C. A. 180] ; Electrical Accumulator Co. V. Brush Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682; Singer v. Braunsdorf, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,897, 7 Blatchf. 521. 96. Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; Graham t\ McCormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39. 97. Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co. 17. Yaryan Mfg. Co., 43 Fed. 140. [HI, G, 8] 872 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS and therefore without abandoning the invention claimed therein. He may file a subsequent application and secure a patent. 98 Nevertheless where an application for a patent has been filed and withdrawn, lapse of time is a fact which may give great point and force to testimony disclosing what was done in the interval." 9. EVIDENCE OF ABANDONMENT. Abandonment is never presumed ; 1 on the contrary the presumption is against abandonment and the burden is upon the one asserting it to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 The issue of letters patent is prima facie evidence that there has been no abandonment. 3 Where the evi- dence raises a presumption of abandonment, it may be rebutted by showing acts prosecuting or asserting the discovery, as the filing of drawings in the patent office. 4 Where the undisputed acts of an inventor furnish evidence of abandon- ment, his testimony that he did not intend to abandon his invention is not entitled to much weight. 5 IV. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS/ A. Original and First Inventor 7 !. IN GENERAL. No valid patent can issue in the United States except upon the application of a person who made the invention by his own original thought, 8 or if he is dead upon the application of his executor or administrator. 9 As between two original inventors of the same thing, the one first to make it in this country or bring it to this country is 98. Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., 110 Fed. 660 [reversed in 114 Fed. 926, 52 C. C. A. 546] ; Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164 ; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; Lindsay v. Stein, 10 Fed. 907, 20 Blatchf. 370. Abandonment of application and at the same time filing a new application is not an aban- donment of the invention. Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714. 99. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 27 Fed. 377. 1. American Hide, etc., Splitting, etc., Mach. Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503 ; Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94. 2. Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 238 [affirmed in 204 U. S. 609, 27 S. Ct. 307, 51 L. ed. 645] ; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341 ; Crown Cork, etc., Co. t\ Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72 ; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275] ; McCormick v. Sey- mour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240; McMillin v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275. And see Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336. 3. Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94. 4. Emerson v. Hogg, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440, 2 Blatchf. 1, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 77. 5. Bevin v. East Hampton Bell Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,379, 9 Blatchf. 50, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 23. 6. Right to extension of patent see infra, VII, B. [HI, G, 8] Right to reissues see infra, VIII. 7. Competency of witnesses on issue of priority see WITNESSES. Prior public use or sale in general see supra, III, F, 8. 8. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]; Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 S. Ct. 202, 32 L. ed. 576; Haselden v. Ogden, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,190, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 378; Stearns v. Davis, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,338, McArthur Pat. Cas. 696. Introducer. Must be inventor not intro- ducer. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 507; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v, Howland Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986 [re- versed on other grounds in 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500]. User. Must be inventor and not mere user. In re Honiball, 9 Moore P. C. 378, 14 Eng. Reprint 340. Contracts as to ownership cannot affect the question of inventorship. Tyler r. Kelch, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 180; Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527. Abandonment of the right to a patent by the original inventor does not entitle another to a patent therefor. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Pickering v. McCullough, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,121, 3 Ban. & A. 279, 6 Reporter 101, 13 Off. Gaz. 818 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. ed. 749]. In Canada the applicant must be the origi- nal inventor. Smith v. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46; American Dunlop Tire Co. v. Goold Bicycle Co., 6 Can. Exoh. 223. 9. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896; Do la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Feather- stone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 138; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 593, 28 L. ed. 493. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 873 entitled to the patent. 10 A patent granted upon the application of one who is not the inventor is void. 11 2. FIRST INVENTOR. The first inventor is the one who first has a mental con- ception of the invention provided he exercises diligence thereafter in adapting and perfecting it, bat as against a rival claimant who first reduced the invention to practice the burden is upon the first conceiver to show diligence. 12 The party first to reduce to practice is prima facie the first inventor; 13 but the man who first conceives and in a mental sense first invents a machine, art, or composition of matter may date his particular invention back to the time of its conception, if he connects the conception with its reduction to practice by reasonable diligence on his part so that they are substantially one continuous act. 14 3. ORIGINALITY OF INVENTION. A person is not an original inventor unless the ideas embodied in the invention originated in the creative faculties of his mind. If he merely adapts and gives effect to the ideas of others he is not an original inventor and is not entitled to obtain a patent. 15 10. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121; Bed- ford v. Hunt, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,217, 1 Mason 302, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 148; Eames v. Rich- ards, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,240; Gibbs v. Johnson, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,384; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,569, 2 Wall. Jr. 283 ; Hayden v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,261, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 86 [affirmed in 3 Wall. 315, 18 L. ed. 76] ; Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,568, 1 Mason 182, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 131; Reed r. Cutter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590; Woodcock v. Parker, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,971, 1 Gall. 438, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 37; Yearsley v. Brookfield, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, Me Arthur Pat. Cas. 193. And see infra, V, C, 8, a. Agreement of parties. Rights cannot be changed by agreement between parties. New Departure Bell Co. v. Corbin, 88 Fed. 901. First inventor and not the first applicant for a patent is the one entitled to the patent. Pacific Cable R. Co. t\ Butte City St. R. Co., 58 Fed. 420. Foreign inventors applying for a patent here, and who are placed in interference, are entitled under the law to claim the date they communicated their invention here as the date of their conception, and the date of the filing of their application here as the date of their constructive reduction to practice. Harris v. Stern, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 164. In England the first to secure a patent is the first inventor, although the last to file application. Ex p. Bates, "L. R. 4 Ch. 577, 38 L. J. Ch. 501, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 410, 17 Wkly. Rep. 900. 11. Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 S. Ct. 202, 32 L. ed. 576. 12. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; Hil- lard v. Brooks, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 526; Liberman v. Williams, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 223; Paul v. Johnson, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 187; Funk v. Haines, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 285; Silverman v. Dendrickson, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 381; Yates v. Huson, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 93; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. V. Roberts, 125 Fed. 6 ; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33 ; Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall R. Signal Co., 6 Fed. 603 [affirmed in 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct, 1069, 29 L. ed. 96] ; Kneeland v. Sheriff, 2 Fed. 901 ; Chandler v. Ladd, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,593, McArthur Pat. Cas. 493 ; Davidson v. Lewis, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,606, McArthur Pat. Cas. 599; Draper v. Potomska Mills Corp., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,072, 3 Ban. & A. 214, 13 Off. Gaz. 276; Heath v. Hildreth, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,309, Cranch Pat. Dec. 96, 132, McArthur Pat. Cas. 12; Hicks v. Shaver, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,462; 'Hill v. Dunklee, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,489, McArthur Pat. Cas. 475; Marshall v. Mee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,129, McArthur Pat. Cas. 229; Mix v. Perkins, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,677; Reed v. Cut- ter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590; Stephens v. Salisbury, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369, McArthur Pat. Cas. 379; Taylor v. Archer, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,778, 18 Blatchf. 315, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 449; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440. And see infra, IV, A, 6. 13. Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cart- ridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 [af- firming 69 Fed. 408] ; Warner v. Goodyear, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,183, Cranch Pat. Dec. 125, McArthur Pat. Cas. 60. 14. Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Reed v. Cutter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590. And see cases cited supra, note 12. 15. Greenwood v. Dover, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 251; Soley v. Hebbard, 5 App. Cas. ( D. C. ) 99 ; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters' Cartridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C.' C. A. 367; Alden v. Dewey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 153, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 17, 1 Story 336 ; Burrows v. Weth- erill, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,208, McArthur Pat. Cas. 315; Stearns v. Davis, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,338, McArthur Pat. Cas. 696. Suggestion of result but not means does not constitute invention. Streat v. White, 35 Fed. 426; Bell v. Daniels, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,247, 1 Bond 212, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 372; Judson t\ Moore, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569, 1 Bond 285, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 544. Suggestion of some features by another than the patentee will not invalidate the pat- ent. Corser r. Brattleboro Overall Co., 93 Fed. 807; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. [IV, A, 3] 874 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS 4. CITIZENSHIP OF INVENTOR. In the United States there is no limitation as to the residence, citizenship, or age of the patentee, since any and all persons from any and all countries may secure patents upon exactly the same conditions, 16 and the same rule obtains in England. 17 5. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE a. In General. An invention is reduced to prac- tice when a mechanical embodiment of it is made in such form and so far per- fected as to be capable of practical and successful use. 18 Mechanical perfection The true test to determine whether sugges- tions made to an inventor should deprive him of the claim to originality in the inven- tion is to inquire whether enough has been communicated to enable him to apply it with- out the exercise of invention. Watson t. Bel- field, 26 Fed. 536. Where the patentee learned of the inven- tion abroad he is not an original inventor. American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Rowland Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986 [reversed on other grounds in 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500]. 16. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4886. 17. Act (1883), 34, 46 & 47 Viet. c. 57. 18. Sherwood v. Drewson, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 161; Hillard v. Brooks, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 526; Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259; Howard v. Hey, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 142; Latham v. Armat, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 345; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Chandler v. Ladd, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,593, McArthur Pat. Cas. 493; Farley v. National Steam-Gauge Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,648, McArthur Pat. Cas. 618; Heath v. Hildreth, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,309, Cranch Pat. Cas. 96, 132, McArthur Pat. Cas. 12; Lyman Ventilating, etc., Co. v. Chamber- lain, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,631, 2 Ban. & A. 433, 10 Off. Gaz. 588; Lyman Ventilating, etc., Co. v. Lalor, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,632, 1 Ban. 6 A. 403, 12 Blatchf. 303, 6 Off. Gaz. 642; Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Phila- delphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 77, 6 Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227; Roberts v. Reed Torpedo Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,910, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 629, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 558; Smith v. Prior, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,095, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 469, 2 Sawy. 461, 4 Off. Gaz. 633. The rules of law as to what constitutes a prior use and what constitutes a reduction to practice are the same. Gilman v. Hinson, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 409. The device constructed must be fashioned out of a material capable of actual use for the intended purpose in order to constitute a reduction to practice. Gilman v. Hinson, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 409. Models and drawings. A model is not a reduction to practice ( Howell v. Hess, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194; Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Porter v. Louden, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Stainthorp v. Humis- ton, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,281, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107), unless the invention belongs to that class of simple inventions which require no other proof of their practicability than the construction of a model (O'Connell v. Schmidt, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 77). Models and draw- ings constituted a reduction to practice under [IV, A, 4] the act of 1836. Heath v. Hildreth, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,309, Cranch Pat. Dec. 96, 132, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 12; Perry v. Cornell, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,002, Cranch Pat. Cas. 132, McArthur Pat. Cas. 6.8. Sketches and drawings are not a reduction to practice. Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33. See also supra, III, C, 4, f. Unsuccessful machine is not a reduction to practice. Pelton v. Waters, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,913, 1 Ban. & A. 599, 7 Off. Gaz. 425. See also supra, III, C, 4, e. Proof of various experiments in search of a particular process, and an approximation to that process, does not sufficiently show a reduction to practice. Bourn v. Hill, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 291. Voting machine must work with accuracy. McKenzie v. Cummings, 24 App. Cas. (D. C.) 137. Process. A process is reduced to practice only when used. Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207. Later manufacture on larger scale. If an experimental machine completely embodies the invention, and is capable of testing its efficiency to the full extent of its power, the mere fact that later manufactures to fill or- ders may be on a larger scale cannot impair its effect as constituting reduction to prac- tice. Robinson v. Thresher, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 22. Long delay in making use of an invention claimed to have been reduced to practice, or in applying for a patent, is a potent circum- stance tending to show that the alleged re- duction to practice was nothing more than an unsatisfactory or abandoned experiment; and this is especially the case where, in the meantime, the inventor has baen engaged in the prosecution of similar inventions. Gil- man v. Hinson, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 409. Where the inventor is already engaged in disposing of a large stock of devices manu- factured under former patents relating to the same subject-matter, of which the new inven- tion is an improvement, a failure immediately to manufacture and put on the market the newly invented device does not afford any reasonable foundation for denying the date claimed for its conception. Laas v. Scott, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 354. The dismantling of an experimental ma- chine by a large and prosperous company has more weight as showing the lack of success of the trial than it would have if done by a poor inventor whose necessities compel him to utilize the parts for other purposes. Rob- inson v. Threshsr, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 22. Delay in filing application as effective weight of proof of actual reduction to prac- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 875 is not necessary. 19 A perfect invention does not necessarily mean a perfectly constructed machine, but one so constructed as to embody all the essential elements of the invention in a form that would make them practical and operative, so as to accomplish the result in a practical way. 20 Demonstration of the success by actual use is usually necessary, 21 although some devices are so simple that the mere construction without use is sufficient. 22 The same act, or set of acts, may or may not constitute a reduction to practice, modified, as they may be, by the special circumstances of the particular case. 23 The reduction to practice must bs by the applicant himself, or by his authorized agent, and not by some other third party. 24 It is not enough to entitle an applicant to a patent that someone else has shown the practicability of the invention by reducing it to practice. The work of such third party will not be taken as sufficient to relieve the applicant of the consequences of his own want of diligence. 25 b. Constructive Reduction to Practice. The filing of an allowable application for a patent is a constructive reduction to practice of the invention at the date when it was filed. 26 So also is a description of the invention in a foreign patent tice see Seeberger v. Russel, 26 App. Gas. (D. C.) 344. Reduction to practice of device for protect- ing low-tension telephone circuits see Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336. Evidence of reduction to practice see See- berger v. Russel, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 344. 19. Lowrie v. Taylor, 27 App. Cas. (B.C.) 522; Coffee v. Guerrant, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 497 ; Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Backus Automatic Pin Setter Co., 153 Fed. 288; Rogers Typograph Co. v. Mergenthaler Lino- type Co., 64 Fed. 799, 12 C. C. A. 422; Mer- genthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co., 57 Fed. 502; Jenner v. Dickinson, 117 Off. Gaz. 600; Hope v. Voight, 115 Off. Gaz. 1585; Gallagher v. Hien, 115 Off. Gaz. 1330; Na- tional Cash Register Co. v. Lamson Consol. Store Service Co., 67 Off. Gaz. 680. Later improvements. Success is not nega- tived by later improvements. Wyman v. Donnelly, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 81; Hien 17. Buhoup, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 293. 20. Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 388; Coffee v. Guerrant, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 497 ; American Hide, etc., Splitting, etc., Mach. Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503. 21. Wickers v. McKee, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 4; Macdonald v. Edison, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527; Latham v. Armat, 17 App. Gas. (D. C.) 345; Kelly v. Fynn, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 573; Appert v. Schmertz, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 117; Ocumpaugh v. Nor- ton, 115 Off. Gaz. 1850; Paul v. Hess, 115 Off. Gaz. 251. A shop test is sufficient. Demonstration need not be in commercial use. Wyman v. Donnelly, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 81; Wurts v. Harrington, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 149. 22. Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336; Couch v. Barnett, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 446; Loomis v. Hauser, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 401; Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86. 23. Andrews v, Nilson, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 451; Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336. 24. Robinson v. McCormick, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 98; Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; Burgess v. Wetmore, 16 Off. Gaz. 765. 25. Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214. 26. Davis v. Garrett, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 9; Cobb v. Goebel, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 75; Dashiell v. Tasker, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Hulett v. Long, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 284; McCormick v. deal, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335; Dodge v. Fowler, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 592; Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Porter v. Louden, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Dane v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,557, 3 Biss. 380, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130, 2 Off. Gaz. 677; Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94; John- son v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291; New England Screw Co. v. Sloan, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,158, Me Arthur Pat. Cas. 210; Wheeler v. Clipper, Mower, etc., Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,493, 10 Blatchf. 181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 2 Off. Gaz. 442. Where application fails to disclose inven- tion sufficiently it is not a reduction to prac- tice. Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245. Caveat is not a reduction to practice. American Bell Tel. Co. v. National Tel. Mfg. Co., 109 Fed. 976. Renewal of application takes date of origi- nal. Lotterhand v. Hanson, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 372; Cain v. Park, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 42. Forfeited application cannot defeat a pat- ent regularly granted. Christensen v. Noyes, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 94. Divisional application takes date of origi- nal. Hillard v. Brooks, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 526. Reissue application dates from original and applicant is entitled to date of original as date of constructive reduction to practice. Austin 17. Johnson, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 83. In England the patent bears date of appli- [IV, A, 5, b] 876 [30 Cye.] PATENTS or a printed publication. 27 Where an application for a patent is first made abroad in a country having the requisite treaty relations with this country, the date of the application, if within t\velve months before the application here, controls. 28 In case of designs the foreign application must be within four months. 6. DILIGENCE. 29 The person who is first to conceive the invention but later than his rival in reducing it to practice is not regarded as the first inventor unless he exercised due diligence in efforts to perfect the invention, 30 at and continuously after the time that his rival entered the field against him. 81 Knowledge of the entry of the rival in the field is not necessary in order to impose the duty of dili- gence. 32 The question of due diligence is not a matter of comparative diligence as between the two parties, 33 but it is merely required that the last to reduce to practice shall show that he was exercising reasonable diligence under all of the surrounding circumstances. 34 cation and is effective from that date. Ex p. Bailey, L. R. 8 Ch. 60, 42 L. J. Ch. 264, 27 L. T! Rep. N. S. 430, 21 Wkly. Rep. 31; Holste v. Robertson, 4 Ch. D. 9, 46 L. J. Ch. 1, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 457, 25 Wkly. Rep. 35; Saxby v. Hennett, L. R. 8 Exch. 210, 42 L. J. Exch. 137, 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 639, 22 Wkly. Rep. 16; Ex p. Henry, L. R. 8 Ch. 167, 42 L. J. Ch. 363, 21 Wkly. Rep. 233. The pat- ent, however, bars the grant of a subsequent patent even upon an earlier application. Lee v. Walker, L. R. 7 C. P. 121, 41 L. J. C. P. 91, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 70. Where two appli- cations were filed on the same date both patents were granted. In re Bering, 13 Ch. D. 3f)3, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 634, 28 Wkly. Rep. 710. 27. Parker v. Appert, 75 Off. Gaz. 1201. Foreign patent is effective only from the date of issue. Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 73. Acts abroad not considered unless in form of patent or publication. Electrical Accumu- lator Co. r. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. 117. 28. This applies only to applications filed after March 3, 1903. 32 U. S. St. at L. 1225, c. 1019. Foreign application was ineffective under the old law. Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 73. 29. Abandonment of invention in general see supra, III, G. 30. Moore v. Hewitt, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 577; Rose v. Clifford, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Gordon v. Wentworth, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 150; Feinberg v. Cowan, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 80; Parkes v. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Fowler v. Boyce, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 48; Fowler 17. McBerty, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 41; Laas v. Scott, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 354; Dashiell v. Tnsker, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Oliver v. Felbel, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 255; Marvel v. Decker, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 562; Platt v. Shipley, 11 App. Gas. (D. C.) 576; Yates v. Huson, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 93; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cart- ridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 ; Ecau- bert v. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. C. A. 73; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33 ; Hubel r. Dick, 28 Fed. 132; Cox v. Griggs, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,302, 1 Biss. 362, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; Ellithorp v. Robertson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,409, McArthur Pat. Cas. 585; [IV, A, 5, b] Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 450, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368. Nature of diligence required. The dili- gence required of an inventor is diligence rather in the reduction of his invention to practice than in application to the patent office, or in manufacturing his device for public use. Woods v. Poor, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397; Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336. Constructive reductions to practice. Dili- gence in applying for patent is effective. New- ton f. Woodward, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 34; Odall v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159; Jones v. Cooke, 117 Off. Gaz. 1493. Lack of diligence in prosecuting applica- tion after it is filed is of no consequence. Miehle v. Read, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 128. Filing caveat will not excuse diligence. Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,411, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351. Work on other inventions is not diligence. Bliss v. McElroy, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 120; Lotterhand v. Hanson, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 372; Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207. Diligence must be in testing and perfecting the invention and not merely in exploiting it commercially. Howell v. Hess, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194; Laas v. Scott, 26 App. ('as. (D. C.) 354; Seeberger v. Dodge, 114 Off. Gaz. 2382. 31. Effective diligence must commence be- fore rival entered the field and continue there- after. It need not commence with conception. McArthur v. Mygatt, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514 : De Wallace v. Scott, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 157 ; Griffin v. Swenson, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 135; Platt v. Shipley, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 576; Yates v. Huson, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 93; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Reed v. Cutter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590. 32. Platt r. Shipley, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 576. 33. Not a race of diligence. Paul v. John- son, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 187; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Electric R. Signal Co. r. Hall R. Signal Co.. 6 Fed. 603 [affirmed in 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct. 1060, 29 L. ed. 90]. 34. Diligence cannot be determined by any PATENTS [30 Cye.] 877 7. MODELS, DRAWINGS, AND DESCRIPTION. Models, unpublished drawings, and verbal or unpublished description of an invention do not constitute proof of priority. 85 They must be followed by diligence in reduction to practice. 36 8. ASSISTANCE BY OTHERS. The inventor who furnishes the ideas to produce the result is entitled to avail himself of the mechanical skill or scientific knowl- edge of others in carrying those ideas into effect and he does not thereby forfeit the right to a patent. 87 general rule but depends upon the special circumstances of the particular case. Mead v. Davis, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 590; Woods v. Poor, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397; O'Con- nell v. Schmidt, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 77; De Wallace r. Scott, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 157; McCormick v. deal, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335. Only such diligence as is reasonable is re- quired. Mead v. Davis, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 590; Garrels v. Freeman, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207. Experiments. Reasonable time is allowed for experiments. De Wallace v. Scott, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 157; Dietz v. Wade, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,903. Making drawings only is not diligence. Watson v. Thomas, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65. Poverty and illness will not excuse in- definite delays. Griffin v. Swenson, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 135. Mistake in supposing invention covered by a prior patent is no excuse for delay. Platt V. Shipley, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 576. Resumption after abandonment. An in- ventor of a complicated device, who attempts to construct a completed machine with his own hands during a period of over a year, and finally abandons the effort from lack of time and money, and immediately makes a model and drawings, is exercising due dili- gence. Davis v. Garrett, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 9. For cases in which the particular facts were held to show diligence see Howard v. Bones, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 619; Davis v. Horton, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 601; Mead v. Davis, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 590; O'Connell v. Schmidt, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 77; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 559; Christen- sen v. Ellis, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 498; New- ton ?;. Woodward, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 34; Shellaberger i\ Sommer, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 3 ; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. f. Minneapolis Harvester Works, 42 Fed. 152; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 132; Appleton v. Chambers, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 497a ; Mix v. Perkins, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,677; New Eng- land Screw Co. v. Sloan, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,158, McArthur Pat. Cas. 210; Phelps v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,072, 4 Blatchf. 362, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 479. For cases in which the particular facts were held to show lack of diligence see Kinsman v. Kentner, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 293; Gordon f. Wentworth, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 150; Bliss v. McElroy, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 120; Parkes r. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Turnbull v. Curtis, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 567; Anderson v. Wells, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 115; Liber- man v. Williams, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 223; Paul v. Johnson, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 187; Harris v. Stern, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 164; Wyman v. Donnelly, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 81; Hallwood v. Lalor, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 61; Petrie v. De Schweinitz, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 386; Stapleton v. Kinney, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 394; Miehle v. Read, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 128; Austin v. Johnson, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 83; Locke v. Boch, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 75; Darnell v. Grant, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 589; Jackson v. Getz, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 343; Jackson v. Knapp, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 338; Marvel v. Decker, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 562; Dodge v. Fowler, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 592; Arnold v. Tyler, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 175; Porter v. Louden, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Wright v. Postel, 44 Fed. 352; Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. t\ Simpson, 29 Fed. 288; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291 ; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368,- Savary v. Lauth, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,389, McArthur Pat. Cas. 691; Gallagher r. Hien, 115 Off. Gaz. 1330; Paul v. Hess, 115 Off. Gaz. 251; Seeberger r. Dodge, 114 Off. Gaz. 2382. 35. Howell v. Hess, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194; Guilbert v. Killinger, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 107; McCormick v. deal, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 3oo; Porter v. Louden, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Uhlman v. Bartholomse, etc., Brewing Co., 41 Fed. 132; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368; Stillwell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Gas- light, etc., Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,453, 1 Ban. & A. 610, 7 Off. Gaz. 829; Hammond v. Basch, 115 Off. Gaz. 804. Small size of machine will not prevent re- duction to practice. Gallagher i\ Hien, 115 Off. Gaz. 1330. 36. See supra, IV, A, 6. 37. McKellof v. Fetzer, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 586; Huebel v. Bernard, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 510; Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Smith v. Stewart, 55 Fed. 481 {.affirmed in 58 Fed. 580, 7 C. C. A. 380]; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Adkina, 44 Fed. 280; Yoder v. Mills, 25 Fod. 821; National Feather Duster Co. v. Hibbard, 9 Fed. 558, 11 Biss. 76; Blandy r. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609; Pennock r. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 4 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327J ; [IV, A, 8] 878 [30 Cye.] PATENTS 9. INVENTION MADE ABROAD. Acts performed abroad, whether by a citizen of tliis country or a foreigner, are not pertinent to the question of his right to a patent, since under the statute knowledge or use of the invention abroad is no bar to the grant of a patent to an original inventor who firsts makes or discloses the invention bere. 38 10. EVIDENCE AS TO ORIGINALITY AND PRIORITY 39 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. The presumption is that the person who obtained the patent was the first and original inventor, 40 and the burden is upon the person seeking to show the contrary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. 41 b. Admissibility and Sufficiency. The admissibility of evidence in actions to establish priority between inventors is governed by the rules applicable in civil Sparkman v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Gas. No. 13,208, 1 Blatchf. 205, Fish. Pat. Rep. 110, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 122; Watson v. Bladen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,277, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 510, 4 Wash. 580; Allen v. Rawson, 1 C. B. 551, 50 E. C. L. 551; Milligan v. Marsh, 2 Jur. N. S. 1083 ; Steadman v. Marsh, 2 Jur. N. S. 391. And see infra, IV, C, 2. 38. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4923 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3396]. And see supra, III, B, 5. Unless in the form of a patent or publica- tion acts abroad are not pertinent. Electric Accumulator Co. v. Brush. 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682. In Canada a foreign inventor who was first to conceive but who did not make public or use is not entitled to the patent. Reg. v. La Force, 4 Can. Exch. 14. As against an infringer, date of invention abroad may be shown. Welsbach Light Co. v. American Incandescent Lamp Co., 98 Fed. 613, 39 C. C. A. 185; Hanifen v. Price, 96 Fed. 435 [reversed on other grounds in 102 Fed. 509, 42 C. C. A. 484] ; Hanifen v. E. H. Godshalk Co., 78 Fed. 811. 39. Conclusiveness and effect of decision of patent office see infra, VI, C, 15, d. 40. Lewis v. Cronemeyer, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 174 ; Bader v. Vajen, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; Dodge v. Fowler, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 592; Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Soley v. Hebbard, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 99; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Merrimac Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Feld- man, 133 Fed. 64; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 [affirming 69 Fed. 408] ; Front Rank Furnace Co. v. Wrought Iron Range Co., 63 Fed. 995; Green v. French, 11 Fed. 591; Albright v. Celluloid Harness Trimming Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 147, 2 Ban. & A. 629, 12 Off. Gaz. 227; Carter v. Carter, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,475, McArthur Pat. Cas. 388; Cook v. Ernest, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,155, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396, 1 Woods 195, 2 Off. Gaz. 89; Crouch v. Speer, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438, 1 Ban. & A. 145, 6 Off. Gaz. 187; Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, 1 Blatchf. 445, Fish. Pat. Rep. 268 [affirmed in 14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394] ; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,569, 2 [IV, A, 9] Wall. Jr. 283; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,575, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Matthews v. Skates, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602; Putnam v. Yerrington, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,486, 2 Ban. & A. 237, 9 Off. Gaz. 689; Reed v. Cutter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81, 1 Story 590; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 1 Off. Gaz. 466, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368; Sickels v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Washburn v. Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206, 3 Story 122; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,864, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. To what time presumption extends. The presumption of originality arising from the grant of a patent only extends back to the time when the application was filed in the patent office. Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291; Johnson v. Root, 13- Fed. Cas. No. 7,410, 2 Cliff. 637; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275]; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,342, 4 Ban. & A. 88, 15 Blatchf. 446, 16 Off. Gaz. 675; White v. Allen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535, 2 Cliff. 224, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440; Wing v. Richardson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,869, 2 Cliff. 449, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 535. 41. Gibbons v. Peller, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530; Larkin v. Richardson, 28 App. Ca?. (D. C.) 471; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154; Hall Signal Co. v. Union Switch, etc., Co., 115 Fed. 638; Cohansey Glass Mfg. Co. v. Wharton, 28 Fed. 189; Donoughe v. Hubbard, 27 Fed. 712; Duffy t). Reynolds, 24 Fed. 855; Rogers v. Beecher, 3 Fed. 639; Campbell v. James, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,361, 4 Ban. & A. 456, 17 Blatchf. 42, 8 Reporter 455, 18 Off. Gaz. 979; Cox v. Griggs, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,302, 1 Biss. 362, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; Fisk v. Church, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,826, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 540, 1 Off. Gaz. 634; Hawes v. Antisdel, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,234, 2 Ban. & A. 10, 8 Off. Gaz. 685 ; Konold v. Klein, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,925, 3 Ban. & A. 226, 5 Reporter 427. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 8T9 actions generally. 42 The weight and sufficiency of the evidence in actions to establish priority between inventors is governed by the rules applicable in civil cases generally. 43 B. Joint Inventors 1. IN GENERAL. Two or more parties may by mutual contributions or suggestions so aid in developing the idea of each as to produce an invention which must be regarded as the result of the joint mental efforts of both, and not as the separate invention of either, and in such case they must apply for and receive the patent jointly. 44 2. JOINDER IN GRANT. A patent issued to two parties as joint inventors is invalid where it appears that one of them is the sole inventor, 45 or where different 42. See, generally, EVIDENCE. Verbal declarations of a person that he has made an invention, coupled with a descrip- tion of the nature and objects of the inven- tion, are a part of the res gestce, and ad- missible to prove priority of invention (Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Gibbs v. John- son, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,384; Stephens v. Salisbury, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369, McArthur Pet. Cas. 379) and such verbal descriptions, without drawing or model, are admissible for the purpose of proving priority of invention, when the invention is of great simplicity and the time is not so long as to make the recol- lection improbable (Stephens v. Salisbury, supra ) . But it seems that conversations and declarations by one of the parties describ- ing a device by which he has already con- structed a model is inadmissible, if such model is not produced or its non-production accounted for (Richardson v. Hicks,, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,783, McArthur Pat. Cas. 335) ; and it has been held error to allow a witness testifying to such conversations and declara- tions to testify that a model shown to him and not claimed to be the one that the in- ventor had then constructed corresponds to the description given, and that he could have made it from such description (Richardson v. Hicks, supra] . A certificate of a commissioner of patents of the correctness of a copy or translation from a French volume in the patent office is inadmissible to prove the existence of an invention prior to plaintiff's patent, as the book itself, or a duly proved translation, ^s the only way its contents can be shown. Gay- lord t?.* Case, 5 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 413, 4 Am. L. Rec. 494. 43. See, generally, EVIDENCE. Evidence held sufficient see National Co. v. Belcher, 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375; Uhl- man v. Arnholdt, etc., Brewing Co., 53 Fed. 485; Bliss v. Merrill, 33 Fed. 39; Atkinson v. Boardman, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 608, Cranch Pat. Dec. 139, McArthur Pat. Cas. 80; Bab- cock v. Degener, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 698, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 607; Collins v. White, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,019; Jillson v. Winsor, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,321, McArthur Pat. Cas. 136; Sherwood v. Sherman, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,780. Evidence held insufficient see Gibbons v. Pellar, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530; Shuman v. Beall, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 324; Henry v. Doble, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 33; Gillette v. Sendelbach, 146 Fed. 758, 77 C. C. A. 55; Ashe v. Mutual Lasting Co., 42 Fed. 840; Lamson Cash R. Co. v. Osgood Cash Car Co., 29 Fed. 210; Hutchinson v. Everett, 26 Fed. 531; Beach v. Tucker, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,153; Carter v. Carter, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,475, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 388; Clarke v. Cramer, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,848, McArthur Pat. Cas. 473; Cornell v. Hyatt, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,237, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 423; Warner v. Goodyear, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,183, Cranch Pat. Dec. 125, McArthur Pat. Cas. 60. On testimony which is vague and wanting in precision in respect to the essential fea- tures of the device for which priority is claimed, priority of invention will not be ad- judged. Cornell v. Hyatt, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,237, McArthur Pat. Cas. 423. Acknowledgment or admission of priority. On a question of priority between two in- ventors, the fact that one of them partici- pated in the application of the other would seem to constitute a conclusive acknowledg- ment of priority. National Co. v. Belcher, 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375. But the fact that one who claims to be the first and original inventor of a device has taken into partner- ship with himself the assignees of another, who also claim to be the original inventor, instead of litigating with them the question of priority, is not to be regarded as an ad- mission by the former patentee of the validity of the patent claimed by the latter, if the arrangement was induced either directly or indirectly by fraud or misrepresentation. Sloat I?. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a. 44. Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, 29 Fed. 449; Worden v. Fisher, 11 Fed. 505; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675. Where each has invented a distinct im- provement on the same machine, the object sought to be attained being a unit, a joint patent may be issued. Wilson v. Singer, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,835. Mutual suggestions and improvements are sufficient to constitute a joint invention. Worden v. Fisher, 11 Fed. 505. Filing a sale caveat is no estoppel to secure joint patent. Hoe v. Kahler, 25 Fed. 271, 23 Blatchf. 354, 12 Fed. Ill, 20 Blatchf. 430. When a claim covers a series of steps or a number of elements in a combination, the in- vention may well be joint, although some of the steps or some of the elements may have come as the thought of one. Quincey Min. Co. v. Krause, 151 Fed. 1012, 81 C. C. A. 290. 45. Bannerman v. Sanford, 99 Fed. 294, 39 [IV, B, 2] 880 [30 Cye.] PATENTS improvements on the same machine were invented by each separately without the participation or knowledge of the other, 46 and a patent issued to a party as sole inventor is invalid where it appears that he made the invention jointly with another. 47 One of two joint inventors cannot make application and secure the patent upon assignment from the other. Both must join. 48 In an action for the infringement of a patent, the burden of showing as a defense that the patentee was a joint inventor with some other person, of the thing invented, is upon the patentee. 49 The issuance of a patent to two persons as joint inventors constitutes prima facie proof that the invention was joint. 50 And to invalidate a patent granted to two jointly the evidence must be clear and convincing. 51 C. Employer and Employee 52 1. IN GENERAL. The statutes of the United States require that the patent issue upon the application of and in the name of the real inventor, although he was employed and paid to make it for the benefit of the one employing him. 53 In such case the employer may be entitled to the ownership of the patent and may compel its transfer by assignment, but this depends upon the nature of the agreement between them. 54 A company that employs a skilled workman to make improvements on its machinery is not entitled to a conveyance of the patents secured by the workman on improvements so made in the absence of agreement to that effect. 55 An employee, performing all the duties assigned to him in his department of service, may exercise his inventive faculties in any direction he chooses, with the assurance that whatever C. C. A. 534; Stewart v. Tenk, 32 Fed. 665; Welsbach Light Co. v. Cosmopolitan Incan- descent Gaslight Co., 100 Fed. 648; Royer v. Coupe, 29 Fed. 358 ; Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,718, 4 McLean 456, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 730 [affirmed in 11 How. 248, 13 L. ed. 683] ; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252; Act (1885), 5, 48 & 49 Viet. c. 63. 46. De Laval Separator Co. v. Vermont Farm Mach. Co., 126 Fed. 536 [affirmed in 135 Fed. 772, 68 C..C. A. 474]. 47. Arnold v. Bishop, 1 Fed. Cas. Nos. 552, 553, McArthur Pat. Cas. 27, 36; Thomas v. Weeks, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,914, Fish. Pat. Rep. 5, 2 Paine 92. Evidence held insufficient to show joint in- vention see Ashcroft v. Cutter, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 578, 6 Blatchf. 511. 48. 2 Op. Atty.-Gen. 571. 49. Ashcroft v. Cutter, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 578, 6 Blatchf. 511. 50. Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Land, 49 Fed. 936. 51. Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Land, 49 Fed. 936; Schlicht, etc., Co. v. Chicago, Sewing-Mach. Co., 36 Fed. 585; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, 29 Fed. 449; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675. Testimony of one of joint patentees insuffi- cient to invalidate patent. Priestly v. Mon- tague, 47 Fed. 650. 52. See MASTER AND SERVANT, 26 Cyc. 1021. 53. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]; Tyler v. Kelch, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 180; Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527, 79 Off. Gaz. 861; Green v. Willard Improved Barrel Co., 1 Mo. App. 202; Damon v. Eastwick, 14 Fed. 40. In England, where a servant or employee [IV, B, 2] makes an invention the patent is granted to him. Ex p. Scott, L. R. 6 Ch. 274, 19- Wklv. Rep. 425; Bloxam v. Elsee, 6 B. & C. 169, 13 E. C. L. 88, 1 C. & P. 558, 12 E. C. L. 320, 9 D. & R. 215, 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 104, R. & M. 187, 30 Rev. Rep. 275; Matter of Russell, 2 De G. & J. 130, 6 Wkly. Rep. 95, 59 Eng. Ch. 104, 45 Eng. Reprint 937. 54. Hunt f. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527. Circumstances showing title in employer see Baldwin v. Von Micheroux, 83 Hun (X.Y.) 43, 31 N. Y. Suppl. 696 [affirming 5 Misc. 386, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 857] ; Annin v. Wren, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 352; Bonsack Mach. Co. v, Hulse, 57 Fed. 519 [affirmed in 65 Fed. 864, 13 C. C. A. 180]. Insufficient proof of agreement. Dalzell v. Dueber Watch-Case Mfg. Co., 149 U. S. 315, 13 S. Ct. 886, 37 L. ed. 749 [reversing 38 Fed. 597]. Securing patent at expense of company by employee will not give company title. Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917, 59 Am. Rep. 321. 55. Sendelbach v. Gillette, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 168; Burr v. De la Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415, 7 N. E. 366; Burden v. Burden Iron Co., 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 559, 80 N. Y. Suppl. 390; Gill v. U. S., 160 U. S. 426, 16 S. Ct. 322. 40 L. ed. 480; Dalzell v. Dueber Watch-Case Mfg. Co., 149 U. S. 315, 13 S. Ct. 886, 37 L. ed. 749; Hapgood r. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct, 193, 30 L. ed. 309-; Barber v. National Carbon Co., 129 Fed. 370, 64 C. C. A. 40, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1154; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Hansen, 128 Fed. 444 [affirmed in 137 Fed. 403, 71 C. C. A. 207, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 1172] ; Taylor v. Wood, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13.808, 1 Ban. & A. 270, 12 Blatchf. 110, 8 Off. Gaz. 90; Whiting v. Graves, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,577. 3 Ban. & A. 222, 13 Off. Gaz. 455. And see infra, IV, D. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 881 invention lie may thus conceive and perfect is his individual property. 56 The company, however, has an implied license to make, use, and sell the invention. 57 2. PERFECTION OF EMPLOYER'S IDEAS. Where the employer has a preconceived plan of an invention, and while engaged in experiments to perfect it the employee makes suggestions ancillary to the plan and preconceived ideas of the employer, the invention as a whole including the improvements is to be regarded as the invention of the employer/ 3 It is otherwise, however, if the suggestions of the employee amount to a new method or arrangement which is in itself a complete invention. To enable the employer to claim the invention he must have, not merely the idea of the end or result to be accomplished, but a definite idea of the means which the employee amplifies or improves in details. 59 3. PRESUMPTIONS AS TO INVENTORSHIP. Where a party employs another to assist in giving practical effect to his ideas, the presumption is that the employer is the inventor of the thing produced by their joint effort, and the burden is upon the employee to show clearly that he made the invention. 60 On the other hand where a party is employed to exercise his inventive skill because of his supposed ability as an inventor, the presumption is in favor of the employee. 61 D. Government Employees. Government employees in general may secure patents upon inventions made by them during their employment and are entitled to own the patents upon the same conditions as other employees. 62 The govern- ment may have an implied license to use the invention, but has no title to the patent except by express agreement. 63 Employees of the patent office cannot receive or own a patent except by inheritance or bequest; 61 but after their employment ceases they may secure a patent upon an invention made during their employment. 65 Agreement not against public policy. An agreement by an employee to assign an inter- est in all inventions made by him to the employer, in consideration of the employment, is not against public policy. Wright v. Vo- calion Organ Co., 148 Fed. 209, 78 C. C. A. 183. Construction of contract for interest in fu- ture inventions see Wright v. Vocalion Organ Co., 148 Fed. 209, 78 C. C. A. 183. Improvements made after expiration of agreement do not belong to employer. Apple- ton v. Bacon, 2 Black (U. S.) 699, 17 L. ed. 338. 56. Solomons v. U. S., 137 U. S. 342, 11 S. Ct. 88, 34 L. ed. 667. 57. Gill v. U. S., 160 U. S. 426, 16 S. Ct. 322, 40 L. ed. 480; Keyes v. Eureka Consol. Min. Co., 158 U. S. 150, 15 S. Ct. 772, 39 L. ed. 929; Lane, etc., Co. v. Locke, 150 U. S. 193, 14 S. Ct. 78, 37 L. ed. 1049; Solomons v. U. S., 137 U. S. 342, 11 S. Ct. 88, 34 L. ed. 067; Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct. 193, 30 L. ed. 369; Blauvelt v. Interior Conduit, etc., Co., 80 Fed. 906, 26 C. C. A. 243; Whiting v. Graves, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,577, 3 Ban. & A. 222, 13 Off. Gaz. 455. And see Bonathan v. Bowmanville Furniture Mfg. Co., 31 U. C. Q. B. 413. 58. McKellof v. Fetzer, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 586; Larkin v. Richardson, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 471; Kreag v. Green, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 437; Orcutt v. McDonald, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Gallagher v. Hastings, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 88; Gedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 192; Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527; Milton v. Kingsley, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 531; Agawam Woolen [56] Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,810, 2 Cliff. 555, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; King v. Gedney, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,795, McArthur Pat. Cas. 443; Wellman v. Blood, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,385, McArthur Pat. Cas. 432; Huebel v. Bernard, 90 Off. Gaz. 751. Lack of mechanical skill and employment of another to construct a machine does not for- feit the right to an invention. United Shirt, etc., Co. v. Beattie, 149 Fed. 736, 79 C. C. A. 442 [affirming 138 Fed. 136]. 59. Sendelbach v. Gillette, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 168; Streat v. Simpson, 53 Fed. 358. 60. Whitney v. Howard, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 218; Flather v. Weber, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 179; Gallagher v. Hastings, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 88; Slaughter v. Halle, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 19; Gedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 192; Miller v. Kelly, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 163; Milton v. Kingsley, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 531; Goodyear r. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Thibodeau r. Hil- dreth, 117 Off. Gaz. 601; Corsy v. McDermott, 117 Off. Gaz. 279. 61. See supra, IV, C, 1. 62. Gill v. U. S., 160 U. S. 426, 16 S. Ct. 322, 40 L. ed. 480; Solomons v. U. S., 137 U. S. 342, 11 S. Ct. 88, 34 L. ed. 667. 63. Gill tr. U. S., 160 U. S. 426; McAleer v. U. S., 150 U. S. 424, 14 S. Ct, 160, 37 L. ed. 1130; Solomons v. U. S., 137 U. S. 342. 64. U. S. Eev. St. (1878) 480 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 271]. 65. Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co., 1 Fed. 304, 17 Blatchf. 485; Foote v. [IV. D] 882 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS E. Assignees. Patents may be issued and reissued to assignees upon appli- cations made by the inventors. 66 It is not necessary, however, for the patent to issue in the name of the assignee in order that lie shall acquire title, since it vests in him by operation of law when the instrument of transfer is made. 67 Assignees as well as inventors may transfer title to patents owned by them since the right of transfer is unlimited. 68 F. Personal Representatives. Upon the death of the inventor before issue of patent, the right of applying for and obtaining the patent devolves upon the executor or administrator. 69 The personal representatives take the patent with other property in trust for the heirs. 70 A foreign executor or administrator may apply for and receive the patent, but his authority must be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States. 71 G. Heirs. If after applying for a patent the inventor dies and the patent issues in his name after his death, it goes by operation of law to the heirs. 72 H. Guardian of Insane Person. Where an inventor becomes insane before securing a patent, his legally appointed guardian, conservator, or representative may apply for and obtain the patent in trust for him. 73 V. APPLICATION AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. A. In General. The application for a patent must be made to the commis- sioner of patents, 73 and the statutory requirements must be complied with in mak- ing application and in the proceedings thereon or the patent is void. 76 The pro- ceedings upon applications are governed by rules adopted by the commissioner of patents with the approval of the secretary of the interior under section 483 of the .Revised Statutes. B. Requisites of Application 1. IN GENERAL. An application for patent in the United States comprises a petition, specification, claims, oath, fee of fifteen dollars, drawings if the nature of the inventions admits of illustration, and a model if required by the patent office. 77 Models are seldom required and are Frost, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,910, 3 Ban. & A. 607, Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Northwest- 14 Off. Gaz. 860. era Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire 66. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S. Extinguisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385] ; Hendrie v. Sayles, Ban. & A. 177, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227, 6 Off. 98 U. S. 546, 25 L. ed. 176. Gaz. 34. Copartnership may issue to copartnership 71. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896, as as assignee. Wright v. Randel, 8 Fed. 591, 19 amended March 3, 1903, 32 U. S. St. at L. Blatchf. 495; Harrison v. Morton, 76 Off. Gaz. 1227. 1275. 72. De la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. 67. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) v. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Consolidated Electric 37 L. ed. 138. Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co., 34 Fed. 73. The above is embodied in the act of 335; Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. Edi- Feb. 26, 1899, c. 227, 30 U. S. St. at L. 915 son Electric Light Co., 25 Fed. 719, 23 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3386], but Blatchf. 412. through obvious clerical error does not appear Record in the patent office is delivery of in U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896, as rewritten possession. Waterman v. MacKenzie, 138 in the act of March 3, 1903, c. 1019, 3, 32 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923. U. S. St. at L. 1226 [U. S. Comp. St. Suppl. 68. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4398 [U. S. (1905) p. 665]. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3002]; Selden v. Stock- Patent to guardian is valid. Whitcomb v. well Self-Lighting Gas-Burner Co., 9 Fed. 390, Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652. 19 Blatchf. 544. 74. Application for extension of patent 69. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896; De la see infra, VII, B. Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Feather- Application for reissue see infra, VIII, E. stone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 75. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4888 [U. S. 138; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West Bradley, etc., Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]. Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 593, 28 L. ed. 76. Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 493; Stimpson r. Rogers, 23 Fed. Cas. No. S. Ct. 202, 32 L. ed. 576; Roemer v. Simon, 13,457, 4 Blatchf. 333. 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 384. And see supra, In England the executor or administrator I, A, 4. must apply for patent within six months. 77. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4888, 4889, Act (1883), 34, 46 & 47 Viet. c. 57. 4891, 4892, 4934 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 70. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 3383, 3384, 3400]. [IV, E] PATENTS [30 Cye.] 883 never necessary as a prerequisite to the entry of the application as complete. 78 All parts save the model must be filed in the patent office before the application will be given a filing date. 79 The application must be signed by the inventor if alive and two witnesses. 80 Copies of the specification, claims, and drawings are attached to the patent and form a part thereof. 81 2. SPECIFICATION OR DESCRIPTION a. In General. The word "specification," when used separately from the word " claim," as used in the statute, means the written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making, constructing, compounding, and using it and the claims made. 82 While it is said that courts are reluctant to declare patents void for insufficient description, 83 the applicant must nevertheless describe not merely the principle of his invention, but the best mode in which he contemplates applying the principle and must describe the means to be employed in such full, clear, and exact terms as will enable those skilled in the art without other aid to make and use the invention. 84 If this is not done the patent is void. 85 It has been decided that nothing should be left to 78. Pract. Rule 56. A model is no part of patent. Barry v. Gugenheim, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,061, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 452, 1 Off. Gaz. 382. Necessity for specimens. The patent office determines whether specimens are necessary. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Cochrane, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 719, 4 Ban. & A. 215, 16 Blatchf. 155 \reversed on other grounds in 111 U. S. 293, 4 S. Ct. 45, 28 L. ed. 433]. 79. Pract. Rule 31. 80. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4888 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]. 81. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4889 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]. 82. Wilson v. Coon, 6 Fed. 611, 18 Blatchf. 332. 83. Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56, 3 Ban. & A. 1, 12 Off. Gaz. 93 ; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. 84. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4888 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]; Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 26 L. ed. 54; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 22 L. ed. 699; Grier v. Castle, 17 Fed. 523; Allen v. Hunter, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 225, 6 McLean 303; Burr v. Cowperthwait, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,188, 4 Blatchf. 163; Forbes V. Barstow Stove Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379 ; Judson v. Moore, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569, 1 Bond 285, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 544; Mabie v. Haskell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,653, 2 Cliff. 507; Page v. Ferry, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,662, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298; Sullivan v. Redfield, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,597, Paine 441, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 477; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed Cas.'No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, Mc- Allister 48; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464; Vogler v. Semple, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,987, 2 Ban. & A. 556, 7 Biss. 382, 11 Off. Gaz. 923; Wayne v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,303, 1 Bond 27, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 20; Whitney v. Emmett, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,585, BaW. 303, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,592, 2 Bond 45, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 157; Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,896, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. Reasons for rule. Exactitude in the de- scription of an invention is required in order that the government may know what they have granted, and what will become public property when the patent expires; that licensees may know how to use and practice the invention during the term of the patent; and that subsequent inventors may know what portion of the field of an invention is unoccupied. Judson v. Moore, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569, 1 Bond 285, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 544; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464 ; Wayne v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,303, 1 Bond 27, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 20. Construction of phrase "mounted on" see In re Duncan, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 457. In England provisional specification need describe the invention only roughly and not in detail. Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 Ch. 570, 20 Wkly. Rep. 649; Stoner v. Todd, 4 Ch. D. 58, 46 L. J. Ch. 32, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 661, 25 Wkly. Rep. 38; Daw v. Eley, L. R. 3 Eq. 496, 36 L. J. Ch. 482, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 559; In re Newall, 4 C. B. N. S. 269, 4 Jur. N. S. 562, 27 L. J. C. P. 357, 93 E. C. L. 269; Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. East London Rubber Co., 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 488. When provi- sional specification is allowed by the law officer of the crown it cannot be impeached as in- sufficient. Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. 127, 36 L. J. Ch. 455, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 39-9, 15 Wkly. Rep. 208. 85. Ames v. Howard, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 326, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 689, 1 Sumn. 482; Emerson v. Hogg, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440, 2 Blatchf. 1, Fish. Pat. Rep. 77; Evans v. Hettick, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,562, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 166, 3 Wash. 408 [affirmed in 7 Wheat. 453, 5 L. ed. 496] ; Lippincott v. Kelly, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,381; Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,568, 1 Mason 182, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 131; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44. For descriptions held insufficient see Miller v. Mawhinney Last Co., 105 Fed. 523, 44 C. C. A. 581; Davis v. Parkman, 71 Fed. 961, 18 C. C. A. 398; Schneider v. Thill, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,470a, 5 Ban. & A. 565 ; Sullivan v. [V, B, 2, a] 884: [30 Cyc.] PATENTS experiment. 86 A specification is sufficient, if a mechanic skilled in the art can from the descriptions and drawings make and use the invention ; 87 and sufficiency is to be determined by knowledge possessed at the time of the grant. 88 By ''skilled in the art" is meant those of ordinary skill and not the very expert." 1 Whether the description is so full, clear, and exact as to enable any one skilled in the art to make and use it is a question for the jury to determine 90 upon the evidence of persons skilled in the art to which the patent appertains. 91 b. Matters of Common Knowledge. It is not necessary to describe matters of common knowledge which those skilled in the art would understand without description. 92 c. Uses of Invention. It is not necessary to describe all uses to which the invention may be put, but it is necessary to describe some intended use. 93 The inventor is entitled to all uses of his invention whether he foresaw them or not. 94 Redfield, 23 Fed. Gas. No. 13,597, 1 Paine 441, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 477; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,342, 4 Ban. & A. 88, 15 Blatchf. 446, 16 Off. Gaz. 675. For cases in which allegations of insuffi- ciency of description were overruled see Sea- bury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553; Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 L. ed. 325; Consolidated Safety- Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge, etc., Co., 113 U. S. 157, 5 S. Ct. 513, 28 L. ed. 939; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860 ; Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. ( U. S. ) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co., 110 Fed. 538 [affirmed in 117 Fed. 240, 54 C. C. A. 272]; Hensel-Colladay Co. v. Rosenau, 105 Fed. 968; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83; Burrows v. Wetherill, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,208, McArthur Pat. Cas. 315; Goodyear v. Wait, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,587, 5 Blatchf. 408, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 242; Wayne v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,303, 1 Bond 27, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 20; Wilbur v. Beecher, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,634, 2 Blatchf. 182, Fish. Pat. Rep. 401. Stating proportions. A claim for a com- pound is not void because the exact propor- tions are not stated, where proportions may be varied. Klein ?;. Russell, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 433, 22 L. ed. 116. Stating dimensions. When the novelty of an invention consists in the dimensions or the material of the new thing devised, the patentee must specify the particular dimen- sions or the particular material his invention contemplates. Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co., 149 Fed. 409, 79 C. C. A. 229 [reversing 146 Fed. 549]. 86. Head v. Stevens, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 411; Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 327, 19 L. ed. 93; Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384. Patent for chemical process must disclose materials and proportions with such clearness that no experiment i^ necessary. B6n6 v. Jeantet, 129 U. S. 683, 9 S. Ct. 428, 32 L. ed. 803; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384. 87. W 7 ebster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U.. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177; Am Ende i\ Sea- bury, 36 Fed. 593; Dorsey Harvester Revolv- ing" Rake Co. v. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014, [V, B, 2, a] 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quinby, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,240, 4 Ban. & A. 192, 16 Off. Gaz. 135; Stanley v. Whipple, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,286, 2 McLean 35, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 1; Stephens v. Salisbury, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369, McArthur Pat. Cas. 379. 88. Matheson v. Campbell, 69 Fed. 597 [.af- firmed in 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384]. 89. Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Tannage Patent Co. r. Zahn, 66 Fed. 986 [reversed on other grounds in 70 Fed. 1003, 17 C. C. A. 552]. 90. Wood v. Underbill, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean. 432; Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141, 2 Story 432; Davis ?;. Palmer, 7 Fed. Cas. No-. 3,645, 2 Brock. 298, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 518; Page v. Ferry, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,662, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298. 91. Wood r. Underbill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23. 92. American Delinter Co. r. American Mach., etc., Co., 128 Fed. 709, 63 C. C. A. 307 ; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Carr r. Rice, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; Davis r. Palmer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,645, 2 Brock. 29-8, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 518; Kneass r. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. 9; Tompkins v. Gage, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,088, f> Blatchf. 268, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 577; Union Paper-Bag Co. v. Nixon, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,386, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 402, 4 Off. Gaz. 31. For description of old features reference may be made to a prior patent. Parkes r. Stevens, L. R. 5 Ch. 36, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 18 Wkly. Rep. 233. 93. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279 ; Blanchard r. Eldridge, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,509; Pike v. Potter, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,162, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 55; Macnamara v. Hulse, C. & M. 471, 41 E. C. L. 258; Derosne r. Fairie, 2 C. M. & R. 476, 1 Gale 109, 5 Tyrw. 393. 94. Stow r. Chicago, 104 U. S. 547, 26 L ed. 816; Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, 23 L. ed. 267; Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 20 L. ed. 515; Goshen Sweeper Co. v. Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 67, PATENTS [30 Cye.] 885 d. Philosophical Principles. If the inventor does not know the philosophical principles upon which his invention works or what takes place during its opera- tion, the failure to describe them does not render the patent void so long as the description is sufficient to enable those skilled iti the art to practice the invention and get the results desired. 95 e. Improvements. The general rule governing description Vof the thing for which a patent is asked 96 applies in the case of improvements. 97 The description should show clearly in what the improvement consists. 98 It should be confined to the specific improvement and such parts of the old mechanism as necessarily cooperate with it. 99 It should distinguish between the old and the new. 1 If this is not done the only mode of obviating the difficulty is either by an amended specification or a View patent. 2 It is usually unnecessary to describe the old machine, 3 a general reference thereto being sufficient, 4 unless a description of the whole machine as it operates with the improvement is essential to make the description understood by a person of the trade to which it belongs. 5 A descrip- tion in a patent for an improvement is sufficient if a practical mechanic acquainted with the construction of the old machine in which the improvement is made, can, with the aid of the patent and diagram, adopt the improvement. 6 f. Concealment and Deception. Where the inventor in his patent intention- ally conceals facts about his invention or attempts to deceive or mislead the pub- lic in regard to it, the patent is void. 7 An untrue statement of a material fact invalidates a patent, although a skilled workman might avoid it. 8 Mere defects in the description not intended to deceive will not invalidate a patent; 9 arid if fraud is charged it must be proved. 10 19 C. C. A. 13; Stearns v. Russell, 84 Off. Gaz. 1434. 95. National Meter Co. v. Thomson Meter Co., 106 Fed, 531; Emerson Co. v. Nimocks, 99 Fed. 737, 40 C. C. A. 87; Knickerbocker Co. v. Rogers, 61 Fed. 297; Dixon- Woods Co. p. Pfeifer, 55 Fed. 390, 5 C. C. A. 148 ; Haffcke ?. Clark, 46 Fed. 770; Andrews v. Cross, 8 Fed. 269, 19 Blatchf. 294; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quinby, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,240, 4 Ban. & A. 192, 16 Off. Gaz. 135. And see supra, II, B, 7. 96. See supra, V, A, 2. 97. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118. 98. Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207 ; Dixon V. Moyer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931, 4 Wash. 68, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324. 99. Pract. Rule 31; Cross v. Huntly, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 385; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Sargent v. Carter, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,362, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 277; Sullivan v. Redfield, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,597, 1 Paine 441, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 477 ; Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,89-6, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239. 1. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 22 L. ed. 699; Cerealine Mfg. Co. v. Bates, 101 Fed. 272, 41 C. C. A. 341; Alexandria Bank v. Wilson, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 856, 2 Cranch C. C. 5; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Dixon V. Moyer, 7 ^Fed. Cas. No. 3,931, 4 Wash. 68, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324; Hovey v. Stevens, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,746, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 567, 3 Woodb. & M. 17; Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,568, 1 Mason 182, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 131; Clark v. Adie, 2 App. Cas. 315, 46 L. J. Ch. 585, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 923; Foxwell v. Bostock, 4 De G. J. & S. 298, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 144, 12 Wkly. Rep. 723, 69 Eng. Ch. 231, 46 Eng. Reprint 934; Macfarlane v. Price, 1 Stark. 199, 18 Rev. Rep. 760, 2 E. C. L. 82. 2. Hovey v. Stevens, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,746, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 567, 3 Woodb. & M. 17. 3. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177; Ives v. Hamilton, 92 U. S. 426, 23 L. ed. 494; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Emerson v. Hogg, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440, 2 Blatchf. 1, Fish. Pat. Rep. 77; Gibbs v. Ellithorp, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,383, McArthur Pat. Cas. 702; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,863, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213 [affirmed in 21 How. 88, 16 L. ed. 68]. 4. Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118. 5. Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,896, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239. 6. Ives v. Hamilton, 92 U. S. 426, 23 L. ed. 494. 7. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; Davis v. Bell, 8 N. H. 500, 31 Am. Dec. 202; Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 463, 21 L. ed. 517; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860 ; Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. ( U. S. ) 356, 5 L. ed. 472; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Ex p. Sanders, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,202. 8. Simpson v. Holliday, L. R. 1 H. L. 315, 35 L. J. Ch. 811; Beard v. Egerton, 8 C. B. 165, 13 Jur. 1004, 19 L. J. C. P. 36, 65 E. C. L. 165; Neilson r. Harford, 11 L. J, Exch. 20, 8 M. & W. 806. 9. Lowell v. Lewis, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,568, 1 Mason 182, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 131. 10. Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,567. [V, B, 2, f] 886 [30 Cye.] PATENTS 3. CLAIMS n a. In General. The specification must conclude with a definite and distinct claim or claims pointing out the feature or features of the device dis- closed which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery. 12 The claims fix the extent of the protection furnished by the patent. 13 The protection afforded by the patent does not extend to all that is shown but only to what is set forth in the claim. 14 While the specification may be referred to to limit the claim, it can never be made available to expand it. 15 The claims are essential parts which the public are to look to and scrutinize to ascertain their rights, and must control ; 16 and the courts should be careful not to enlarge by construction the claim which the patent office has admitted, and which the patentee has acquiesced in, beyond the fair interpretation of its terms. 17 If a patentee describe and claim a part only of his patent he is presumed to have abandoned the residue to the public. 18 b. Vague, Indefinite, and Inaccurate Claims. The claim must be definite and clear so as to inform the public with certainty just what it is that the patent secures as a monopoly, 19 and it must be accurate. 20 If it is vague and indefinite it is void. 21 e. Must State Means, Not Function or Result. The claim must state the physi- cal structure or elements of mechanism by which the function desired is attained or the end or result produced, 22 and is not valid if it merely states the function, end, or result. 28 d. Breadth of Claim. While the claim should include such elements as are 11. Correction and amendment of claims on reissue see infra, VIII. Excessive claims as affecting validity of patent see infra, VI, B, 7, b. 12. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4888 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]; Roemer v. Neu- mann, 132 U. S. 103, 10 S. Ct. 12, 33 L. ed. 277; Calkins v. Bertrand, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,317, 2 Ban. & A. 215, 6 Biss. 494, 9 Off. Gaz. 795. If the claim be for an improvement, it must distinguish the new from the old so that it may not cover any parts that are old. Blake v. Sperry, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,503, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 251. Old elements shown need not be included. Goshen Sweeper Co. v. Bissell Carpet- Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 67, 19 C. C. A. 13; Hancock In- spirator Co. . Jenks, 21 Fed. 911; Forbush v. Cook, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,931, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 668. Omission of essential element is fatal. Doubleday v. Beatty, 11 Fed. 729. Claim not supported by description is void. Knox v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 4 Fed. 809; Huggins v. Hubby, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,839. In designs a claim to " the design shown " is sufficient. Dobson v. Dorman, 118 U. S. 10, 6 S. Ct. 946, 30 L. ed. 63. The object of the claim is to eliminate or disclaim what is old. Plimpton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412, 47 L. J. Ch. 211, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 56, 26 Wkly. Rep. 285 ; Hinks v. Safety Lighting Co., 4 Ch. D. 607, 46 L. J. Ch. 185, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 391. 13. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Sutter v. Robinson. 119 U. S. 530, 7 S. Ct. 376, 30 L. ed. 492; Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 25 L. ed. 738; Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568, 24 L. ed. 235; Untermeyer v. Jeannot, 20 Fed. 503; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Re- fining Co., 116 Off. Gaz. 1452; Lehigh Valley [V, B, 3. a] R. Co. v. Mellon, 20 Off. Gaz. 1891; Masury v. Anderson, 4 Off. Gaz. 55. 14. In re Seabury, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 377 ; U. S. Peg- Wood, etc., Co. v. B. F. Sturte- vant Co., 122 Fed. 470 [affirmed in 125 Fed. 378, 60 C. C. A. 244] ; Ingham v. Pierce, 31 Fed. 822; Toohey v. Harding, 1 Fed. 174, 4 Hughes 253; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294 ; Ex p. Tillman, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,050. 15. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800. 16. Untermeyer v. Jeannot, 20 Fed. 503. 17. Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 25 L. ed. 738. 18. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U. S. 274, 24 L. ed. 344. 19. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601 ; Swift v. Whiaen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; In re Creveling, 117 Off. Gaz. 1161; In re Dilg, 115 Off. Gaz. 1067. 20. In re Creveling, 117 Off. Gaz. 1167. 21. Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. Mc- Keesport Light Co., 159 U. S. 465, 16 S. Ct. 75, 40 L. ed. 221; Brickill v. Baltimore, 50 Fed. 274; Brickill V. Hartford, 49 Fed. 372; Edgarton v. Furst, etc., Mfg. Co., 9- Fed. 450, 10 Biss. 402; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294. 22. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Canda v. Michigan Mal- leable Iron Co., 124 Fed. 486, 61 C. C. A. 194; National Meter Co. v. Neptune Meter Co., 122 Fed. 82 [affirmed in 129 Fed. 124, 63 C. C. A. 626]; In re Creveling, 117 Off. Gaz. 1161. 23. Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co., 127 Fed. 341; Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 70 Fed. 816, 17 C. C. A. 430 [affirmed in 83 Off. Gaz. 1067]. And see supra, II, A, 4; II, B, 4. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 887 necessary to produce the desired result, 24 it is not necessary that the claim specify in detail mechanism which constitutes the invention; 25 but it may refer to the elements of mechanism by broad terms of description which will include equivalent mechanism for the purpose. 26 The inventor may make a generic claim including many specific forms. 27 e. Alternative Claims. Claims should not seek to include two elements by referring to them in the alternative but should use some broad term of description applicable to both. 28 f. Multiplicity of Claims. While a number of claims may be made in a single patent, 29 they should contain material differences and should not consist of mere repetitions in varying phraseology of the same thing. 30 A needless multiplicity of claims calls for a limited construction of them, 81 and the patent maybe invalid because of ambiguity. 82 4. DRAWINGS. The drawings must be referred to in the specifications ^ and 24. In re Creveling, 117 Off. Gaz. 1167. Omission of understood element will not invalidate. Chicago Wooden Ware Co. v. Miller Ladder Co., 133 Fed. 541, 66 C. C. A. 517. 25. Schroeder v. Brammer, 98 Fed. 880; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203. And see General Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Mfg. Co., 152 Fed. 427, 81 C. C. A. 569 [reversing 146 Fed. 552]. Limiting claims. Where there are many devices on the market which closely resemble each other in appearance and structure, it is necessary for an applicant for a patent for a similar device to carefully limit and dif- ferentiate his claims in his application. In re Hoey, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 416. 26. Rosell v. Allen, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 559; Hill v. Hodge, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 528; Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863; Carver v. Brain- tree Mfg. Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141, 2 Story 432; Merrill v. Yeo- mans, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,472, 1 Ban. & A. 47, Holmes 331, 5 Off. Gaz. 268 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 568, 24 L. ed. 235] ; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., 80 Off. Gaz. 515. 27. Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging, etc., Co., 99 Fed. 745; Brickill v. New York, 98 Fed. 113; Wilcox, etc., Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Merrow Mach. Co., 93 Fed. 206, 35 C. C. A. 269, 85 Off. Gaz. 1078; Von Schmidt v. Bowers, 80 Fed. 121, 25 C. C. A. 323. And see Macnamara v. Hulse, C. & M. 471, 41 E. C. L. 258 ; Thomas v. Foxwell, 5 Jur. N. S. 37 [affirmed in 6 Jur. N. S. 271]. Claim may be in broad terms which apply to the means shown and to equivalents see In re Green, 20 D. C. 237 ; Tilghman v. Proc- tor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Manhattan Gen. Constr. Co. v. Helios-Upton Co., 135 Fed. 785; Electric Smelting Co. v. Carborundum Co., 102 Fed. 618, 42 C. C. A. 537; Pittsburgh Reduction Co. v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 301; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 52 Fed. 965; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,280, 5 Blatchf. 46, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 1L283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Nixon, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,391, 2 Ban. & A. 244, 1 Flipp. 491, 9 Off. Gaz. 691; Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,396, 2 Ban. & A. 60, 7 Off. Gaz. 698, 877, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 479, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 363. Terms covering forms not yet invented may be used. U. S. Glass Co. v. Atlas Glass Co., 88 Fed. 493. Omission of elements which would be un- derstood is not fatal. Taylor v. Sawyer Spmdle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203 [affirming 69 Fed. 837] ; American Autom- aton Weighing Mach. Co. v. Blauvelt, 50 Fed. 213; Wells v. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. Sub-combination in machine not useful alone may be claimed. Roberts v. H. P. Nail Co., 53 Fed. 916; Wells v. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. 28. Burr v. Smith, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,196; Union Paper-Bag Co. v. Nixon, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,386, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 402, 4 Off. Gaz. 31; Wheeler v. Simpson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,500, 1 Ban. & A. 420, 6 Off. Gaz. 435. 29. In re Carpenter, 24 App. Cas. (D. C.) 110; Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 463, 21 L. ed. 517; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 257; Britton v. White Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 93; Brush Electric Co. v. Electrical Accumulator Co., 47 Fed. 48 ; Tompkins v. Gage, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,088, 5 Blatchf. 268, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 577; Comput- ing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 119 Off. Gaz. 1586. 30. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. u. El- mira, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 257 [reversed on other grounds in 71 Fed. 396, 18 C. C. A. 145]. 31. Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 463, 21 L. ed. 517. 32. Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 463, 21 L. ed. 517. 33. Pract. Rule 38. Drawings considered in connection with claims and specifications see Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co., 147 Fed. 266. That drawings are part of the patent see Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Brammer v. Schroeder, 106 Fed. 918, 46 C. C. A. 41 ; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. [V, B, 4] 888 [30 Cye.] PATENTS must clearly show the invention. 54 They are not required to be working draw- ings or made to an exact scale, but it is sufficient if they disclose the inventor's idea so that one skilled in the art may make it. 35 They may be signed by the applicant or his attorney, but there must be two witnesses to the signature. 36 5. OATH a. Necessity. It is provided by statute that the applicant must make oatli that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the thing for which he solicits a patent ; that he does not know and does not believe that the same was ever before known or used and shall state of what country he is a citizen. 37 In construing this statute it has been held that the taking of the oath is but a prerequisite to the granting of the patent and in no sense essential to its validity. 38 The patent office also requires that he shall state that the invention has not been in public use or on sale in this country or described in a printed publication in this country or abroad more than two years before the application was filed and shall give the date of foreign patents granted upon the invention. 39 b. By and Before Whom Made. The oath must be made by the inventor if living and sane, 40 and if dead, by the executor or administrator. 41 It may be made in the United States before any officer authorized to administer oaths; and if made abroad before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or before any notary public, judge, or magistrate having an official seal and author- ized to administer oaths 42 the authority of the foreign officer shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States. 43 e. Absence of Written Oath. A patent is not invalid merely because no written oath appears among the papers of the record, since it is to be presumed that an oath was taken. 44 Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 263; Swift v. Whisen. 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. Designs. Reference to a drawing fully showing the design is sufficient. In re Free- man, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 226; Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 10, 6 S. Ct. 946, 30 L. ed. 63. Compare In re Mygatt, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 366. In an application for a design patent for a font of type, it is sufficient to furnish the conventional drawing accepted for years by the patent office, and it is not neces- sary, under the patent office rules relating to designs, to show or describe the type them- selves. In re Schraubstadter, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 331. 34. Pract. Rule 50. One of several forms shown in drawings. Where a skilled mechanic could construct the three forms of buffers described from the specifications and drawings, the specification in that respect is sufficient, although but one form is shown in the drawings. Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Wagner Palace-Car Co., 38 Fed. 416. 35. Dashiell v. Grosvenor, 162 U. S. 425, 16 S. Ct. 805, 40 L. ed. 1025; Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 485, 48 C. C. A. 72; American Hide, etc., Splitting, etc., Mach. Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503 ; Johnston v. Woodbury, 97 Off. Gaz. 402. 36. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4889 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3383]; In re Henry, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,371, Me Arthur Pat. Cas. 467. 37. IT. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4892 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3384]. Date of oath. The burden is on the party [V, B, 4] questioning the correctness of the date given at the date of the oath to an application for a patent. O'Connell v. Schmidt, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 77. 38. Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 S. Ct. 202, 32 L. ed. 576; Child v. Adams, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,673, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 3 Wall. Jr. 20; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600, 1 Gall. 429, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28. Oath of executor to support proper amend- ment after inventor's death is not necessary. De la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. r. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 138. The statute is directory to the officer who superintends the issuing of letters patent, but is not a condition to the validity of the patent. Dyer r. Rich, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 180. Innocent mistake as to citizenship in oath is not fatal. Tondeur v. Chambers, 37 Fed. 333. 39. Pract, Rule 46. 40. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]. 41. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896. 42. Jurat need not be dated. French v. Rogers, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,103, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133. 43. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4892 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3384]; U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4896, as amended March 3, 1003, 32 U. S. St. at L. 1226 [U. S. Comp. St. Suppl. (1905) p. 665]. 44. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. v. Do- mestic Tel., etc., Co., 42 Fed. 220, 51 Off. Gaz. 2083; Hancock Inspirator Co. ?;. Jenks, 21 Fed. 911; Hartshorn r. Eagle Shade Roller PATENTS [30 Cye.] 889 6. FEES. In the United States the first fee of fifteen dollars must be paid upon filing the application; 45 and the final fee of twenty dollars must be paid within six months after the application is passed and allowed by the patent office. 46 This means six calendar months. 47 The patent, however, is not subject to collat- eral attack upon the ground that the fee was not paid. 48 7. SUBJECT-MATTER OR SCOPE. An application for a patent should relate to a single subject and should claim only one invention, or if more than one only such as are related and dependent. The application cannot include independent inven- tions, 49 although it may include related inventions. 50 The doctrine of the patent office that applications for patents shall not be severable except on structural lines must be held to mean upon physical lines which actually divide the machine into separate parts, 51 but his decision is not conclusive and may be passed upon by the courts. 52 C. Examination and Proceedings in Patent Office 1. IN GENERAL. The commissioner of patents is required by law to make or cause to be made by the primary examiner an examination for each application for patent and to deter- mine whether the applicant has complied with the law and discloses a new inven- tion which is sufficiently useful and important to warrant the grant of a patent. 53 Co., 18 Fed. 90; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; De Florez v. Raynolds, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,742, 4 Ban. & A. 331, 16 Blatchf. 39-7; Whittemore r. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600, 1 Gall. 429, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. Recitals in letters patent in the absence of fraud are conclusive evidence that the neces- sary oaths were taken before the patent was granted. Seymour v. Osborne, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33. 45. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4893, 4934 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 3354, 3400]. 46. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4885 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382]. 47. Economy Feed Water-Heater Co. v. Lamprey Boiler Furnace-Mouth Protector Co., 65 Fed. 1000, 13 C. C. A. 271 [affirming 62 Fed. 590] ; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. 48. In Canada the fee when application is filed is sixty dollars for eighteen years, forty dollars for twelve years, and twenty dollars for six years. Pat. Act, 56 Viet. c. 34, 4. 49. Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 S. Ct. 799, 36 L. ed. 609 [reversing 21 Fed. 124]; Gage v. Kellogg, 23 Fed. 891; McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. 587 ; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Root v. Ball, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,035, 4 McLean 177, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 513; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. 50. U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555, 109 Off. Gaz. 549; Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Maxheimer v. Meyer, 9 Fed. 460, 20 Blatchf. 17; Adams v. Jones, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 57, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 527, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 73; American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Eliza- beth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 311, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424, 3 Off. Gaz. 522 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000] ; Densmore v. Schofield, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,809, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148; Hay- den v. James, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,260; Lee v. Blandy, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,182, 1 Bond 361, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117; Morris v. Bar- rett, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,827, 1 Bond 254, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505; Welling v. Rub- ber-Coated Harness Trimming Co., 29 Fed. Cas, No. 17,383, 2 Ban. & A. 1, 7 Off. Gaz. 608. And see Act England (1883), 33, 46 & 47 Viet. c. 57. Process and product may be included in one patent. Welling v. Rubber-Coated Harness Trimming Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,383, 2 Ban. & A. 1, 7 Off. Gaz. 608. A rule of the patent office requiring divi- sion between process and apparatus in all cases is invalid because arbitrary. U. S. v. Allen, 102 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555, 109 Off. Gaz. 549. 51. Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 360 [affirmed in 62 Fed. 404, 10 C. C. A. 441]. Whether an invention or improvement shall be embraced in one or in several patents is a question as to which some discretion must be left to the head of the patent office. U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555; Bennett v. Fowler, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 445, 19 L. ed. 431; In re Frasch, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 25. 52. Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 360 [affirmed in 62 Fed. 404, 10 C. C. A. 441]. 53. Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661; Corning v. Burden, 15 Plow. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; In re Aiken, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 107, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 126; In re Cushman, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,513, McArthur Pat. Cas. 569. English practice. The application is re- ferred by the controller to an examiner to determine its sufficiency. Act (1883), 6. If compete application is accepted it is adver- tised (Act (1883), 10) and any one may oppose the grant within two months after pub- lication. Act (1883), 11. The grant may [V, C, 1] 890 [30 Cye.] PATENTS The statutory requirement that lie shall give the applicant such reasons and suggestions as will enable him to judge of the experience of abandoning or modifying his application is directory merely and his action in the premises is not reviewable. 54 He should decide not only questions of law, but also of fact, 55 and his action in awarding or refusing a patent is judicial. 56 The decision of the examiner or board of examiners is not conclusive upon him, and he may refuse a patent allowed by the examiner. 57 So it is his duty, if there be within his knowl- edge or cognizance any substantial or reasonable ground why a patent should not issue, to refuse the patent, whether the specific objection be raised and acted upon by the examiners or not. 58 The applicant being given the right of appeal, the commissioner will not determine doubtful questions in his favor. 59 2. REJECTION. If upon such examination it appears that the applicant is not entitled to a patent as claimed the application will be rejected and the reasons therefor will be stated. 60 The application may be rejected for want of diligence and abandonment. 61 The rejection will be reconsidered upon request supported by proper argument pointing out the supposed errors therein. 62 3. EVIDENCE AT HEARING. The patent office is not confined to technical evi- dence in rejecting applications but may base its action upon anything which shows the facts with reasonable certainty. 63 The burden is on the applicant to be opposed by one interested but not refused where there is doubt. Ex p. Sheffield, L. R. 8 Ch. 237, 42 L. J. Ch. 356, 21 Wkly. Rep 233; In re Bailey, L. R. 8 Ch. 60, 42 L. J. Ch. 204, 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 430, 21 Wkly. Rep. 31; In re Vincent, L. R. 2 Ch. 341, 15 Wkly. Rep. 524; Matter of Spence, 3 De G. & J. 523, 7 Wkly. Rep. 157, 60 Eng. Ch. 406, 44 Eng. Reprint 1370; Matter of Russell, 2 De G. & J. 130, 6 Wkly. Rep. 95, 59 Eng. Ch. 104, 45 Eng. Reprint 937; Tolson's Patent, 6 De G. M. & G. 422, 4 Wkly. Rep. 518, 55 Eng. Ch. 329, 43 Eng. Reprint 1297; In re Lowe, 25 L. J. Ch. 454, 4 Wkly. Rep. 429 ; Ex p. Daly, Vern. & S. 499; Re Tolhausen, 14 Wkly. Rep. 551; In re Stoll, 1 Wkly. Rep. 472, 483. Caveat against sealing must be with leave of the lord chancellor. Re Heathorn, 10 Jur. N. S. 810, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 802, 12 Wkly. Rep. 1068. Opposition referred to law officer to determine if patent should issue. Ex p. Manceaux, L. R. 5 Ch. 518, 18 Wkly. Rep. 854; Ex p. Yates, L. R. 5 Ch. 1, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 663, 18 Wkly. Rep. 1, 153. Law officer must decide between rival claimants and not seal both patents. Ex p. Henry, L. R. 8 Ch. 167, 42 L. J. Ch. 363, 21 Wkly. Rep. 233. May order sealing on conditions. In re Daine,' 26 L. J. Ch. 298, 4 Wkly. Rep. 155. May oppose before law officer and if he orders sealing may oppose before lord chancellor. In re Mitchell, L. R. 2 Ch. 343; In re Vincent, L. R. 2 Ch. 341, 15 Wkly. Rep. 524; Matter of Brennard, 3 De G. F. & J. 695, 7 Jur. N. S. 690, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 456, 64 Eng. Ch. 543, 45 Eng. Reprint 1048. Ruling of law office not over- ruled except for fraud or new evidence. In re Vincent, L. R. 2 Ch. 341, 15 Wkly. Rep. 524. On application for sealing, witnesses can be examined viva voce. In re Gething L. R. 9 Ch. 633. Time for application for sealing may be extended. In re Hersee, L. R. 1 Ch. 518, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 842; In re Somerset, 15 Ch. D. 397, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 28 Wkly. Rep. 709; In re Mackintosh, 2 Jur. N. S. 1242, 5 Wkly. Rep. 194. Where opposition [v, c, i] withdrawn opposer pays costs. In re Cobley, 8 Jur. N. S. 106, 31 L. J. Ch. 333, 5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 387 ; Re Ashenhurst, 2 Wkly. Rep. 3. 54. Ex p. Spence, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,228. And see Ex p. Munson, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,933. 55. Hunt t\ Howe, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,891, McArthur Pat. Cas. 366 ( abandonment ) ; Marcy ?;. Trotter, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,063 (abandonment) ; Wickersham v. Singer, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,610, McArthur Pat. Cas. 645 (abandonment). Public use or sale. He may investigate and determine public use or sale. Mowry v. Bar- ber, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,892, McArthur Pat. Cas. 563. 56. Butterworth v. U. S., 112 U. S. 50, 5 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. 656; U. S. v. Duell, 86 Off. Gaz. 995. 57. Hull v. Patent Com'r, 2 MacArthur (D. C.) 90. 58. In re Drawbaugh, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 219. 59. In re Kemper, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,687, Cranch Pat. Dec. 89, McArthur Pat. Cas. 1. 60. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4903 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389]; In re Wagner, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,038, McArthur Pat. Cas. 510. In England the crown may refuse patent at any timo before sealing. In re Schlumberger, 2 Eq. Rep. 36, 9 Moore P. C. 1, 14 Eng. Reprint 19-7. Sealing not refused for formal defects. In re Wirth, 12 Ch. D. 303, 28 Wkly. Rep. 329. 61. Hunt v. Howe, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,891, McArthur Pat. Cas. 366; Marcy v. Trotter, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,063; Wickersham r. Singer, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,610, McArthur Pat. Cas. 645. 62. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4903 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389. 63. In re Drawbaugh, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 219. Microscope may be used as basis for con- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 891 show the patentability of the thing claimed as an invention. 64 The oath of the applicant i&primafcwie evidence of the novelty, but the commissioner has power and it is his duty to resort to any circumstances legitimately in his possession for the purpose of repelling the presumption. 65 4. AMENDMENT a. In General. Where objection is made to the form of the application, amendment may be made by the applicant or his attorney to correct the error, 66 and where a claim is rejected the applicant or his attorney may amend it to avoid the references cited or reasons for rejection given. 67 He may amend at any time prior to the entry by the primary examiner of a final order of rejection. 68 b. New Matter. All amendments must be within the scope of the original disclosure and must not introduce new matter. 69 An improvement upon the inven- tion disclosed must be claimed in a separate application. 70 A claim made by amendment to matter not disclosed in the application as originally filed is invalid. 71 The description of the functions, operation, or advantages of the invention may be changed so long as there is no change in the disclosure of the invention itself. 72 c. Delay in Amending. Under express statutory provisions amendment or other responsive action must be made within one year from the date of the pre- clusion. Flora v. Powrie, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195. Commissioner's records. Commissioner may take judicial notice of his own records. Cain v. Park, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 42. Ex parte affidavits. Cannot reject upon eac parte affidavits. In re Alteneck, MacArthur & M. (D. C.) 353. Exhibition of experiments. Commissioner is not compelled to submit to an exhibition of experiments at the discretion of applicant. Ex p. Spence, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,288. 64. In re Drawbaugh, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 219; Durham v. Seymour, 71 Off. Gaz. 601. 65. In re Wagner, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,038, McArthur Pat. Cas. 510. 66. Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 572. 67. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4903 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389]; McBerty v. Cook, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 133; Croskey v. Atter- bury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., 110 Fed. 660 [re- versed on other grounds in 114 Fed. 926, 52 C. C. A. 546]; Hillborn v. Hale, etc., Mfg. Co., 69 Fed. 958, 16 C. C. A. 569; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson Co. R. Co., 24 Fed. 793; Collins v. White, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,019; Ostergren v. Tripler, 95 Off. Gaz. 837. 68. Pract. Rule 68; Singer v. Braunsdorf, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,897, 7 Blatchf. 521 ; In re Dilg, 115 Off. Gaz. 1067. 69. Lugsr v. Browning, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409-, 45 L. ed. 586; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 593, 28 L. ed. 493; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 24 L. ed. 1053; Long v. Pope Mfg. Co., 75 Fed. 835, 21 C. C. A. 533; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Con- solidated Car-Heating Co., 67 Fed. 121, 14 C. C. A. 232; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush. Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682; Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. Mc- Keesport Light Co., 40 Fed. 21 [affirmed in 73 Off. Gaz. 1289] ; Globe Nail Co. v. Superior Nail Co., 27 Fed. 450; Milligan v. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 570; In re Scott, 117 Off. Gaz. 278; In re Dilg, 115 Off. Gaz. 1067; Miehle v. Read, 96 Off. Gaz. 426. The settled limitation upon the amendment of applications in respect of claims is that there must be a basis for them in the de- scription and specifications of the application as originally filed. In re Duncan, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 457. In England complete specification may am- plify but cannot change invention disclosed in provisional specification. Vickers v. Siddell, 15 App. Cas. 496, 60 L. J. Ch. 105, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 590, 39 Wkly. Rep. 385; Bailey v. Robertson, 3 App. Cas. 1055, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 854, 27 Wkly. Rep. 17; Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. 127, 36 L. J. Ch. 455, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 399, 15 Wkly. Rep. 208; Lane Fox v. Kensington Electric Lighting Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 424, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 440; Nuttall v. Hargreaves, [1892] 1 Ch. 23, 61 L. J. Ch. 94, 65 L. T. Rep. N. S. 597, 40 Wkly. Rep. 200; United Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 21 Ch. D. 720, 51 L. J. Ch. 705, 46 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620, 30 Wkly. Rep. 724; Hills v. Lon- don Gaslight Co., 5 H. & N. 312, 29 L. J. Exch. 409 ; Gadd v. Manchester, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 569. Complete specification may in- clude additional details not departing from the general nature of the invention. Siddell 1?. Vickars, 30 Ch. D. 92, 59- L. T. Rep. N. S. 575 [affirmed in 15 App. Cas. 496, 60 L. J. Ch. 105, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 590, 39 Wkly. Rep. 385] ; Thomas v. Welch, L. R. 1 C. P. 192, 12 Jur. N. S. 316, 35 L. J. C. P. 200; Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co., 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 142; Woodward v. Sansum, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 347. 70. See note supra, 69. 71. See note supra, 69. 72. Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co., 131 Fed. 853, 68 C. C. A. 233; Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., [V, C, 4, e] 892 [30 Cye.] PATENTS ceding action by the patent office. Further delay works an abandonment of the application unless shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner to have been unavoidable. 73 d. Oath. An amendment which is within the scope of the original specifica- tion does not require a new oath. 74 Otherwise, however, where the specification as well as the claim is enlarged so as to include an invention not before described. 75 5. ALLOWANCE. If the invention is found to be patentable the application must be passed and allowed. 76 The applicant must pay the final fee within six months thereafter and the patent must issue within three months after the payment of the final fee or the application is forfeited. 77 6. FORFEITURE AND RENEWAL. A case forfeited by failure to pay the final fee within six months after allowance may be renewed by any one having an interest in the invention at any time within two years after the original notice of allow- ance. 79 The right of renewal, whether more than one renewal be asked, must be exercised within the two years. 79 The original papers may be used in the renewal application but a new fee is required. 80 7. ABANDONMENT. Upon the failure of the applicant to complete his application and prepare rt for examination within one year after the filing of the petition, and upon his failure to take proper action in prosecution of it within one year after action by the patent office, the application is abandoned unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the delay was unavoidable. 81 The com- missioner's ruling upon the question of abandonment of an application is final and conclusive. 82 8. INTERFERENCE 83 a. In General. "Where two parties make application for 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164; Beach v. Inman Mfg. Co., 74 Off. Gaz. 379. Changing " cement " to " hydraulic cement " is not new matter. National Conduit Mfg. Co. v. Connecticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 75 Off. Gaz. 1361. Where invention resides in operation, oper- ation cannot be changed. American Bell Tel. Co. v. Century Tel. Co., 109 Fed. 976. 73. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4894. Deci- sion of commissioner is final. Western Elec- tric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164. 74. Phillips v. Sensenich, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 159 ; Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co., 147 Fed. 266 ; De la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 138; John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 107 Fed. 290. And see Wirt r. Hicks, 45 Fed. 256, holding that where an application for a patent is made by the inventor in his life- time by attorney the fact that changes were made by the attorney in the specifications and claims without new oaths will not invalidate the patent, since a discretion as to the al- lowance of such amendment is vested in the commissioner. The changing of claims for inventions de- scribed in the specifications does not enlarge the scope of the application and seems to be well within the authority of attorneys to prosecute it. John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 107 Fed. 290. 75. Eagleton Mfg. Co. i\ West, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 593, 28 L. ed. 493. 76. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4893 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3384]; Butterworth v. U. S., 112 U. S. 50, 5 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. [V, C, 4, e] 656; In re Seely, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,632, McArthur Pat. Cas. 248; In re Wagner, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 17,038, McArthur Pat. Cas. 510. 77. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4885, as amended May 23, 1-908, Public No. 133. 78. U. S/Rev. St. (1878) 4897 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3386]; Christensen v. Noyes, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 94; Bowers V. San Francisco Bridge Co., 69 Fed. 640. 79. Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 131 Fed. 90 [affirmed in 136 Fed. 599, 69 C. C. A. 329-] ; In re Atty.-Gen., 70 Off. Gaz. 493. 80. Pract. Rule 176. 81. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4894, as amended March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 692 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3384]. Two years were allowed by statute upon applica- tions filed before Jan. 1, 1898. Delay caused by patent office does not work abandonment. Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863; Adams v. Jones, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 57, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 527, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 73; Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 96 Off. Gaz. 2573. Negligence of attorney is no excuse for delay. Lay v. Indianapolis Brush, etc., Mfg. )., 120 Fed. 831, 57 C. C. A. 313. Co. In England complete specification must be filed within nine months after provisional specification and unless accepted in twelve months is void. Act (1883), 8. 82. Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164; McMillin v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 377. 83. Interfering patents see infra, VI, D. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 893 a patent upon substantially the same patentable invention an interference is declared to exist, and the parties are permitted to present proofs in support of their claims. 84 The question to be determined is that of priority of invention. 85 Priority is ordinarily the only thing at issue. 86 The right of one of the parties to make a claim may be considered as an ancillary question. 86 * The question of patentability is not involved. 87 The proceedings are conducted under rules established by the commissioner, 88 but are analogous to proceedings in equity and the same rules of evidence are applicable. 89 The issue is construed in accordance with the specification of the party who first made the claim. 90 b. Between Applicants and Patentees. An interference must always involve an application for a patent, but may be declared between an application and a patent previously granted to another for the same thing, for, although the patent office cannot cancel the patent already issued, it may issue a second patent to the real inventor. 91 84. U. S. Eev. St. (1878) 4904 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389]. There must be two claimants for the same invention or the interference fails. Cushman V. Lines, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 156; Tyson v. Rankin, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,320, McArtliur Pat. Cas. 262; Lattig v. Dean, 117 Off. Gaz. 1798. Failure to move to dissolve an interference on the ground that an accepted amendment to one of the applications involves new mat- ter is an acquiescence in the allowance of the amendment. Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207. Interference in fact. Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33; Bain v. Morse, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 754, McArthur Pat. Cas. 90; Nichols v. Harris, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,244, McArthur Pat. Cas. 362; Stephenson v. Hoyt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,373, McArthur Pat. Cas. 292. Interference in fact not determined by admissions. Hutchinson v. Meyer, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,957. Lack of interference see Podlesak v. Mcln- nerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399-, 120 Off. Gaz. 2127; O'Reilly v. Smith, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,566, McArthur Pat. Cas. 218; Tyson v. Rankin, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,320, McArthur Pat. Cas. 262; Lallig v. Dean, 117 Off. Gaz. 1796. In Canada three arbitrators are appointed to determine. Each party appoints one, and the commissioner of patents appoints the third. Pat. Act, 35 Viet. c. 26, 43; Faller V. Aylen, 8 Ont. L. Rep. 70, per Anglin, J. 85. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4904 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389]. The question whether the disclosure in a party's application is sufficient is not in issue. Bcchman v. Southgate, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 405 ; Lotterhand v. Hanson, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 372; Schupphaus v. Stevens, 95 Off. Gaz. 1452; Ostergren v. Tripler, 95 Off. Gaz. 837 ; Dodge v. Fowler, 82 Off. Gaz. 595. 86. Swihart v. Mauldin, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 570; Austin v. Johnson, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 83; Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 68, 71 Off. Gaz. 892; Bechman v. Wood, 89 Off. Gaz. 2462; Hulett v. Long, 89 Off. Gaz. 1141; Cross v. Phillips, 87 Off. Gaz. 1399; Cushman v. Lines, 78 Off. Gaz. 2051; Westinghouse v. Duncan, 66 Off. Gaz. 1009. 86a. Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399; Lindrnark v. Hodgkinson, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 612; MacMulkin v. Bollee, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 112; U. S. Co. v. Moore, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 464. 87. Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 534; Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65; Johnson v. Mueser, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 61; Dunbar v. Schellenger, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 129; Slaughter v. Halle, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 19; Newton v. Woodward, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 568; McBerty v. Cook, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 133; Hill v. Hodge, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 528, 83 Off. Gaz. 1211; Doyle v. McRoberts, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 445, 79 Off. Gaz. 1029; Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 68, 71 Off. Gaz. 892; Latham v. Armat, 95 Off. Gaz. 232; Hulett v. Long, 89 Off. Gaz. 1141. Res judicata. Patentability is res judi- cata. Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259-; Chandler v. Ladd, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,593, McArthur Pat. Cas. 493. There must be an adjudication of patenta- bility final to all ordinary intent and pur- poses before the court can be called upon to determine the right of ownership as between rival claimants. Oliver v. Felbel, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 255. 88. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 483, 4905 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 272, 3390]; Spear v. Abbott, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,222; Jones v. Starr, 117 Off. Gaz. 1495; Ross v. Loewer, 77 Off. Gaz. 2141. Time for taking testimony is within the discretion of commissioner of patents. Hop- kins v. Lewis, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,688; O'Reilly v. Smith, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,566, McArthur Pat. Cas. 218; Wellman r. Blood, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,385, McArthur Pat. Cas. 432. 89. Pract. Rule 159; Blackford v. Wilder, 104 Off. Gaz. 580; Nielson v. Bradshaw, 91 Off. Gaz. 644. 90. Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399, 120 Off. Gaz. 2127; Tracy V. Leslie, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 126, 87 Off. Gaz. 891; Ruete v. Elwell, 87 Off. Gaz. 2119. And see Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65. 91. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4904 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3389]; Pract. Rule 93. [V, C, 8, b] 894: [30 Cyc.] PATENTS e. Evidence (i) BURDEN OF PROOF. The burden of proof in an interfer- ence case is upon the party last to tile his application, 92 and where his opponent has a patent granted before that filing date he must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. 93 But a preponderance of evidence will be sufficient where the question involved is to which one of the two parties making separate applica- tions for patent does the right of original invention or discovery of the subject- matter in issue belong, 94 or where the application of the junior party was pending when a patent was granted to his adversary. 95 /Where each of two "parties to an interference claims a disclosure to the other, the presumption is in favor of the one who lias a practical knowledge of the art, and against the one who has not such knowledge. 96 92. Duff v. Latshaw, 31 App. Gas. (D. C.) 235; Goolman v. Hobart, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286; Smith v. Smith, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 518; Braunstein v. Holmes, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 328; Weeks v. Dale, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 498; Gibbons v. Peller, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530; Lowrie v. Taylor, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 522; Cleveland v. Wilkin, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 311; Bourn v. Hill, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 291; Orcutt v. McDonald, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Fowler v. Dyson, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 52; Ball v. Flora, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 394; Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259; Flora v. Powrie, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 19-5; McKnight v. Pohle, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 219; Flather v, Weber, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 179; Tyler v. Kelch, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 180. And see supra, IV, A, 5. Priority of invention and reasonable dili- gence. He must show not only priority of invention, but also reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting his invention. Fowler v. Dyson, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 52; Ball v. Flora, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 394; Funk v. Haines, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 285; Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; Mc- Cormack v. deal, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335. When burden of proof increased. The bur- den imposed upon an applicant in interference with a patentee is increased by adverse de- cisons of all the patent office tribunals. John- son v. Mueser, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 61; Parkes v. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Or- cutt v. McDonald, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Bauer v. Crone, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 352; Macdonald v. Edison, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527; Hallwood v. Lalor, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 61; Swihart v. Mauldin, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 570; Gedge t?. Cromwell, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 192; Howard v. Hey, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 142. When burden shifts. Where the junior party to an interference shows by his evi- dence a disclosure and reduction to practice prior to the filing date of the senior party's application, the burden of proof is shifted to the senior party to establish a date of in- vention and reduction to practice prior to that of the junior party. Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259. 93. McKnight v. Pohle, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 92; Weeks v. Dale, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 498; Lewis v. Cronemeyer, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 174; Shuman v. Beall, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 324, 329; Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 [V, C, 8, C, (I)] App. Cas. (D. C.) 336; French v. Halcomb, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307; Quist v. Ostrom, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 69; Sendelbach v. Gillette, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 168; Gallagher v. Hast- ings, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 88; Dashiell v. Tasker, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Meyer v. Sarfert, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 26; Gtedge v. Cromwell, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 192; Sharer v. McHenry, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 158; Reichenbach v. Kelley, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 333; Fefel v. Stocker, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 317; Locke v. Boch, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 75; Kelly v. Fynn, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 573; Nielson v. Bradshaw, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 92; Williams v. Ogle, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 145; Guilbert v. Killinger, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 107; Doyle v. McRoberts, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 445; Hill v. Parmelee, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 503; La Flare v. Chase, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 83. A limitation on this doctrine is that' where a patent was inadvertently granted to one party during the pendency of his opponent's application both parties are to be treated as if they were applicants. Cutler v. Leonard, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 297; Jansson v. Lars- son, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 203; De Ferranti v. Lyndmark, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 417; Fenner v. Blake, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 507; Shaffer v. Dolan, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 79 ; Wat- son v. Thomas, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65; Miehle v. Read, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 128; Hulett v. Long, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 284 ; Esty V. Newton, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 50; Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527; Paul v. Hess, 115 Off. Gaz. 251; Furman v. Dean, 114 Off. Gaz. 1552. Disclosure to patentee. A junior appli- cant in interference, if he would prevail on the ground that he disclosed the invention to his rival, who has received a patent, must prove such disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt. Anderson v. Wells, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 115. 94. Flather v. Weber, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 179. 95. Andrews v. Nilson, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 451. Burden not increased. The burden of proof imposed on a junior applicant in interference proceedings is not increased by the granting of a patent to his opponents while his ap- plication is pending. Laas v. Scott, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 354. 96. Alexander v. Blackman, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 541. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 895 (n) ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. In deciding the ques- tion of priority of invention the ordinary rules as to the adrnissibility 97 and weight of evidence are applied. 98 Corroboration by independent circumstances is necessary. 99 d. Pleadings. If a party to an interference wishes to take testimony to show 97. Nielson v. Bradshaw, 16 App. Gas. (D. C.) 92, 91 Off. Gaz. 644. The evidence must relate to the relative rights of the parties involved and evidence that some third party was prior to both is irrelevant. Brown v. Blood, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 216; Garrels v. Freeman, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 552; Yearsley v. Brook- field, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, McArtlmr Pat. Cas. 193. That the proofs must conform to the issue see Gibbons v. Peller, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530; McKnight v. Pohle, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 219; Sachs v. Hundhausen, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 511; Blackford v. Wilder, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Tracy v. Leslie, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 126; Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 264. Ex parte affidavits filed after the close of the taking of testimony to correct alleged errors and deficiencies in the testimony will not be considered. Blackford v. Wilder, 104 Off. Gaz. 580; Nielson v. Bradshaw, 91 Off. Gaz. 644. Exhibits offered may be examined micro- scopically. Flora v. Powrie, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195. Depositions not taken in accordance with the rules will not be considered. Arnold v. Bishop, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 552, Cranch Pat. Dec. 109, McArthur Pat. Cas. 36; Perry v. Cornell, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,001, Cranch Pat. Dec. 130, McArthur Pat. Cas. 66; Jones v. Starr, 117 Off. Gaz. 1495. Testimony in one interference is admissible in a second, although a new party is added. Carter v. Carter, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,475, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 388; Eames v. Richards, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,240. Testimony of inventor is admissible and so is proof of declaration by him. Yearsley v. Brookfield, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, McArthur Pat. Cas. 193. An inventor who has assigned his rights is not a competent witness nor is his wife. Eames v. Richards, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,240. Objections to testimony must be made at proper time. Allen v. Alter, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 212; Brown v. Hall, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,008, 6 Blatchf. 401, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Smith v. Flickenger, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,047, Cranch Pat. Dec. 116, McArthur Pat. Cas. 46. Tech- nical objections must be taken before hearing. Meyer v. Rothe, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 97. 98. Signing opponent's application as a witness is strong evidence in favor of the lat- ter. Pickles . Aglar, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 556; Barr Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 110 Fed. 972, 49 C. C. A. 194. Taking assignment from opponent is evi- dence against a party. Winslow v. Austin, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 137. Failure of party to deny allegation of dis- closure to him by opponent is conclusive against him. Ingersoll v. Holt, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 519; Winslow v. Austin, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 137. Lo;ng delay in making application casts doubt on claims of early invention. Fefel v. Stocker, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 317; Nielson v. Bradshaw, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 92; Beals v. Finkenbiner, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 23; Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527. Unsupported recollections of witnesses as to facts occurring several years before are insufficient to establish priority of invention over an earlier patent. Brooks v. Sacks, 81 Fed. 403, 26 C. C. A. 456. And see Caster Socket Co. v. Clark, 110 Fed. 976. The unsupported testimony of the inventor or of two joint inventors will not be accepted as sufficient proof. Durkee v. Winquist, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 248; Taylor v. Lowrie, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 527; French v. Halcomb, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307; Garrels v. Freeman, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Petrie v. De Schweinitz, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 386; Sharer v. McHenry, 19- App. Cas. (D. C.) 158; Mer- genthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 264; Fay v. Mason, 120 Fed. 506 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 325, 62 C. C. A. 159]. 99. Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399, 120 Off. Gaz. 2127. Failure to rebut sworn statement of dis- closure. The rule that the failure of a party to an interference to rebut the sworn state- ment of his adversary that he had fully dis- closed the invention to him furnishes strong evidence that the latter is not the prior in- ventor does not apply where there is no evi- dence of a complete disclosure, and merely unsatisfactory evidence of a partial disclos- ure. Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399, 120 Off. Gaz. 2127. Sufficiency of memorandum to prove prior conception see French v. Halcomb, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307. Conduct inconsistent with claims see Tal- bot V. Monell, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 108; Adams v. Murphy, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 172; Reichenbach v. Kelley, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 333; Warner 17. Smith, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) Ill; Hill v. Parmelee, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 503 ; Wells v. Reynolds, 4 App. Cas. ( D. C. ) 43 ; Barr Car Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 110 Fed. 972, 49 C. C. A. 194; Jenner v. Dickinson, 117 Off. Gaz. 600; Harter v. Barrett, 114 Off. Gaz. 975; Hillard v. Brooks, 111 Off. Gaz. 302. Evidence held sufficient to support claim see Turnbull v. Curtis, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 567. Evidence insufficient to show interference. Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399, 120 Off. Gaz. 2127. [V, C, 8, d] 896 [30 Cye.] PATENTS invention before his application date, lie must file in the patent office a statement within a time fixed and before seeing his opponent's case setting forth the dates of his conception and development of his invention. 1 Such statements correspond to the pleadings, and the party will not be permitted to prove a date earlier than alleged therein. 2 The statements are not considered as proofs. 3 e. Second Interference. The power of the commissioner is not exhausted by once deciding a question of interference ; 4 but where cause is shown, he may per- mit the unsuccessful party to withdraw his application, and refile it and then declare anew an interference between the same parties. 5 9. APPEAL a. In General. A party dissatisfied with the rejection of his claims by the primary examiner or with the decision in an interference case may .appeal to the board of examiners-in-chief ; 6 if dissatisfied with their decision he may appeal to the commissioner in person ; 7 and if dissatisfied with his decision he may appeal to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. 8 No appeal lies to the supreme court from the court of appeals, in a case brought up from the patent office. 9 There is no appeal to the secretary of the interior from the commissioner's action granting or refusing patents and he cannot control in any way such action. 10 \ t : b. Who Entitled to Appeal. One to whom a patent is allowed has no grounds Admissions as proving disclosure see Henry v. Doble, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 33. 1. Pract. Rule 110. Amendment of the statement may be per- mitted in the discretion of the commissioner upon proper showing. Cross v. Phillips, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245; Parker v. Appert, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 270. For variance between allegations and proofs see Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259; Shaffer v. Dolan, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 79. 2. Pract. Rule 110; Parkes r. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Lowrie p. Taylor, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 522; Neth v. Ohmer, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 319; Fowler v. Boyce, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 48; Fowler v. McBerty, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 41, 46; Funk v. Haines, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 285; Bader r. Vajen, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; Cross v. Phillips, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245; Col- houn v. Hodgson, 5 App. Cas. \T>. C.) 21; Hammond v. Basch, 115 Off. Gaz. 804. Where the commissioner has refused to permit an amendment of the statement, evi- dence to show dates other than those given in the statement are inadmissible. Fowler v. Boyce, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 55; Fowler v. Dyson, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 52; Fowler v. McBerty, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 41, 46. The rule will not be ignored, with the consent of the counsel, unless expressly approved by the commissioner of patents or his representa- tives. While cases may often arise where the interest of the parties to interference pro- ceedings and the public will be best sub- served by permitting dates earlier than those set forth in the preliminary statements to be proved, this should be done tinder the super- vision of and with the approval of the patent office. Fowler r. Boyce, supra. 3. Ingersoll v. Holt, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) .519. [V, C, 8, d] 4. Matthews v. Wade, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,292, McArthur Pat. Cas. 143; Potter v. Dixon, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,325, 5 Blatchf. 160, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 381. 5. Matthews v. Wade, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,292 3 McArthur Pat. Cas. 143. 6. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4909 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3390]; U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555. Appeals in interference and from rejection of claims are separate and distinct rights. Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 68. 7. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4910 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3391]. Assistant commissioner may hear and de- cide appeals. U. S. v. Duell, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. 8. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4911, and U. S. St. at L. p. 436, 9, 27 U. S. St. at L. 436 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3391]; Butter- worth v. U. S., 112 U. S. 50, 5 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. 656. Constitutionality of statutes. Statute per- mitting appeals to the court of appeals is constitutional. U. S. v. Duell, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 379 [affirmed in 86 Off. Gaz. 99o] ; U. S. v. Seymour, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 294. Appeal not a proceeding in equity. An ap- peal to this court in an interference case is not a proceeding in equity, and the provi- sions of U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3392], providing for relief by a bill in equity where the patent has been finally refused, do not apply. It is a proceeding at law, and hence a decision of the supreme court of the United States as to the statute referred to does not apply. Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65. 9. Rousseau r. Brown, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 73. 10. U. S. v. Seymour, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 294; Butterworth r. U. S., 112 U. S. 50, 5 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. 656; U. S. v. Duell, 86 Off. Gaz. 995. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 89T for appeal. 11 There is a conflict of authority as to whether a patentee may appeal from an adverse decision in interference proceedings ; while there are some deci- sions affirming the right of appeal, 12 the weight of authority is against it, 13 it being said that a decision awarding priority to the applicant and granting him a patent does not invalidate the existing patent. 14 c. Formalities and Proceedings. The appellant must file in the patent office within a fixed time a notice of appeal to the court of appeals together with his reasons of appeal specifically set forth in writing and within a fixed time there- after must file in court a certified copy of all the original papers and evidence in the case. 15 The commissioner must furnish the court with a statement in writing of the grounds for his decision touching the points involved in the reasons of appeal. 16 The commissioner and examiners may be examined orally by the court. 17 Officers of the patent office may attend the hearing and advise the court. 18 d. Appealable Decisions. An action which amounts to a final refusal of a patent as requested is to be regarded as a rejection and appealable whatever form that action may take. 19 The refusal to entertain an application is a rejection, 20 and the requirement that an application be divided is a rejection and appealable. 21 Mere interlocutory or preliminary rulings or orders are not appealable but only final decisions. 22 A rejection or decision by the commissioner is appealable even where there has been no decision in the case by the examiner or examiners-in- chief , 23 A refusal of a rehearing is not appealable ; 24 nor is a decision dissolving 11. Cushman v. Lines, 10 App. Gas. (D. C.) 156. 12. Babcock v. Degener, 2 Fed. Gas. No. 698, McArthur Pat. Gas. 607 ; Beach v. Tucker, 2 Fed. Gas. No. 1,153. 13. Drake v. Cunningham, 7 Fed. Gas. No. 4,060, McArthur Pat. Gas. 378; Hopkins v. Barnum, 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6,685, McArthur Pat. Gas. 334; Pomeroy v. Connison, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,259, Cranch Pat, Dec. 112, Mc- Arthur Pat. Gas. 40; Whipple v. Renton, 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17,521, McArthur Pat. Gas. 332. 14. Pomeroy v. Connison, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,259, Cranch Pat. Dec. 112, McArthur Pat. Gas. 40. 15. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4912, 4913 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3391]. Reasons of appeal must be clear and defi- nite. Blackinton v. Douglass, 3 Fed. Gas. No. 1,470, McArthur Pat. Gas. 622; Green- ough v. Clark, 10 Fed. Gas. No. 5,784, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 173. 16. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4913 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3391]; Chandler v. Ladd, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,593, McArthur Pat. Cas. 493; In re Henry, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,371, McArthur Pat. Cas. 467. 17. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4913; Richard- son v. Hicks, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,783, McAr- thur Pat. Cas. 335; In re Seely, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,632, McArthur Pat. Cas. 248. 18. Perry v, Cornell, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,001, Cranch Pat. Dec. 130, McArthur Pat. Cas. 66. 19. U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555; Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335. 20. Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 835. 21. Ex p. Frasch, 192 U. S. 566, 24 S. Ct. 424, 48 L. ed. 564; U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. [57] 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555 [overruling In re Frasch, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298; Blackford v. Wilder, 104 Off. Gaz. 582]. 22. Davis v. Garrett, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 9; Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Herman V. Fullman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 259; Hulett v. Long, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 284; Cross v. Phillips, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; In re Marshutz, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; In re Neill, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 584; Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 131; In re Chinnock, 21 D. C. 594; Allen v. U. S., 116 Off. Gaz. 2253; Hillard v. Brooks, 111 Off. Gaz. 302; Luger v. Brown- ing, 104 Off. Gaz. 1123; Swihart v. Mauldin, 99 Off. Gaz. 2322. Application of rule. A motion to dissolve an interference in the patent office before the final hearing of the question of priority, and before the case is ready for such hearing, is an interlocutory proceeding, and is not ap- pealable to the court of appeals unless made so by statute or rule of court. Allen t;. U. S., 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8. 23. Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335; In re Chambers, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,581, McArthur Pat. Cas. 641; Snowden v. Pierce, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,151, 2 Hayw. & H. 386. See, however, Ex p. Frasch, 192 U. S. 566, 24 S. Ct. 424, 48 L. ed. 564; and the dictum to the contrary in Westing- house v. Duncan, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 131. 24. Greenwood v. Dover, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 251; Ross v. Loewer, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 563; In re Janney, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,209, Cranch Pat. Dec. 143, McArthur Pat. Cas. 86 ; In re Rouse, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,086, McArthur Pat. Cas. 286. Refusal by commissioner to reopen case and his action suppressing testimony for irregu- larity are not appealable. Jones v. Starr, 117 Off. Gaz. 1495. [V, C, 9, d] 898 [30 Cye.] PATENTS an interference. 25 The reasons for a decision are not appealable, but only the decision itself. 26 e. Review. On appeal from the decision of the commissioner of patents the court is limited to the points involved in the reasons of appeal. 27 And the exer- cise of the discretion of the commissioner of patents should not be disturbed save where that discretion has palpably been abused. 23 Except in extraordinary cases, the court will not disturb the findings of fact of the patent office. Nevertheless the court is not bound by the conclusions drawn from such facts, unless convinced that such conclusions are correct. 29 The question of identity of invention is in general one which should be settled by the experts of the patent office, and not by the court. 30 And the question of the operativeness of the device cannot be considered by this court as an incident of the main question of priority. 31 So the court will not consider the patentability of the invention, the question in inter- ference cases being one of priority and not of patentability. 32 The unanimous decision of the patent office will not be reversed except for clear error. 33 It will not be reversed on any mere question of doubt whether it be correct or not. 34 If the decision of the commissioner is correct the fact that his opinion is erroneous 25. Herman v. Fullman, 23 App. Gas. (D. C.) 259; Cushman v. Lines, 10 App. Gas. (D. C.) 156; Hillard v. Brooks, 111 Off. Gaz. 302. Contra, see Carter v. Carter, 5 Fed. Gas. No. 2,475, McArthur Pat. Cas. 388; King v. Gedney, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,795, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 443. 26. In re Aiken, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 107, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 126; In re Crooker, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,414, McArthur Pat. Cas. 134; Ex p. Spence, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,228. Mere comments by the commissioner in his decision are not appealable. In re Freeman, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 226. 27. In re Conklin, 1 McArthur (D. C.) 375; In re Aiken, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 107, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 126; Arnold v. Bishop, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 553, McArthur Pat. Cas. 36, Cranch Pat. Dec. 109; Burlew v. O'Neil, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,167, McArthur Pat. Cas. 168. New matter is not considered. In re Jack- son, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,126, McArthur Pat. Cas. 485; In re Jewett, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,308, McArthur Pat. Cas. 259; Ex p. Sand- ers, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,292; Sturtevant v. Greenough, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,579. 28. Davis v. Garrett, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 9; In re Frasch, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 25. And see Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64. Extent of oral argument. The court can- not control the action of the commissioner of patents in a discretionary matter, such as the extent of oral argument to be permitted at a hearing of an interference. Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65. Leave to amend. Whether leave shall be given to amend a preliminary statement is a matter that rests in the discretion of the commissioner of patents, and is not review- able in the court of appeals, save possibly in a case of palpable abuse of that dis- cretion. Neth v. Ohmer, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 319. 29. O'Connell v. Schmidt, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 77. 30. Parkes v. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. [V, C, 9, d] (D. C.) 1. And see Bechman v. Southgate, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 405, holding that ex- cept in extreme cases this court will not go behind the declaration of interference in order to determine the question of identity of invention; and such a case is not presented where it appears that the assignee and em- ployer of the junior and unsuccessful party, after the latter saw his rival's application and drawings, filed the junior party's appli- cation, with specifications reading very much like those of the senior party. 31. Duryea v. Rice, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 423. 32. Orcutt v. McDonald, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228; Hillard v. Brooks, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 526; Ostergreen v. Tripler, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 557; Schupphaus v. Stevens, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 548; Latham v. Armat, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 345; Newton v. Wood- ward, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 34; Westing- house t\ Duncan, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 131; Stone v. Pupin, 100 Off. Gaz. 1113. See also- Potter 1?. Mclntosh, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 510; Kreag v. Geen, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 437; Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65. But see Burrows v. Wetherill, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,208, McArthur Pat. Cas. 315; Jones v. Wetherill, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,508, McArthur Pat. Cas. 409; Yearsley v. Brook- field, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,131, McArthur Pat. Cas. 193. 33. Parkes v. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1; Bourn v. Hill, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 291; Fowler v. McBerty, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 41, 46; Ball v. Flora, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 394; Flora I?. Powrie, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Talbott v. Monell, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 108; Cobb v. Goebel, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 75. Unanimity in the patent office tribunals imposes upon the appellant in this court the burden of showing very clearly that the com- missioner erred in the final decision appealed from. In re Clunies, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 18; Parkes v. Lewis, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. 34. Orcutt v. McDonald, 27 App. Cas.. (D. C.) 228. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 899 is immaterial. 35 The court has no power to send the case back to take further proofs. 86 f. Time For Appeal. Appeals must be taken from the patent office within one year, 37 or within a shorter period fixed in the decision. 38 Notice of appeal to the court of appeals from decisions of the commissioner must be given to the commissioner of patents within forty days from the date of the decision exclusive of Sundays and holidays. 39 A transcript of the record must be filed in the court of appeals within forty days thereafter. 40 10. CAVEATS a. In General. A caveat is simply notice that the one filing it claims to be the inventor of the subject-matter disclosed. 41 It entitles him to notice from the patent office if any one files an application for the same thing within the life of the caveat which is one year, 42 but it 'does not entitle him to notice of applications filed previously or subsequently. 43 Its purpose is to prevent the issue of a patent to another while the caveator is perfecting his invention. 44 But the fact that a patent is inadvertently granted while a caveat is pending does not of itself vacate the patent, or authorize the granting of a patent to the other party unless he shows priority of invention. 45 The caveat is not conclusive evi- dence that the invention is in part perfected ; a person may chose to file a caveat while he is going on and making improvements upon an invention which he has already completed so as to be of practical utility. 46 b. By Whom Filed. A caveat can be filed only by the actual inventor but may be filed by a foreigner as well as a citizen of the U nited States. 47 35. In re Aiken, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 107, Mc- Arthur Pat. Cas. 126; In re Crooker, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,414, McArthur Pat. Cas. 134. 36. Ex p. Sanders, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,292; Blackford v. Wilder, 104 Off. Gaz. 580. 37. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4894. Motion for rehearing does not extend time. Ross v. Loewer, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 563; Ex p. Linton, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,378. Appellant entitled to time allowed by rules. An appeal from the decision of the commissioner of patents will not be dismissed because the appellant has availed himself of all the time allowed by the rules for taking and perfecting his appeal, although by so doing he necessarily prevents the hearing of the appeal until after the summer recess of the court. Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64. Computation of time. Saturday half holi- days do not count in computing time. Ocum- paugh v. Norton, 114 Off. Gaz. 545. 38. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4904 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 33891; Greenough v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,784, McArthur Pat. Cas. 173; Justice v. Jones, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,588, McArthur Pat. Cas. 635. Power to limit time. The court has au- thority to limit the time for appeals. In re Hien, 166 U. S. 432, 17 S. Ct. 624, 41 L. ed. 1066. 39. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4912 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3391]; Pract. Rule 149; Ross v. Loewer, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 563; Hein v. Pungs, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 492; In re Bryant, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 447. 40. Court of Appeals, rule 21. 41. U. S. Electric Co. v. Jamaica, etc., Co., 61 Fed. 655; Hoe v. Kahler, 12 Fed. Ill, 20 Blatchf. 430; Heath v. Hildreth, 11 Fed. Cas. 'No. 6,309; Ex p. Woodruff, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,989. In Canada the law is substantially the same as that in the United States. Pat. Act, 35 Viet. c. 26, 39. In England a caveat is simply opposition at any stage to the grant of a patent to an- other. In re Johnson, 13 Ch. D. 398 note, 28 Wkly. Rep. 709 note; In re Somerset, 13 Ch. D. 397, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 28 Wkly. Rep. 709. It entitles the caveator to notice. Reg. v. Cutler, 14 Q. B. 372 note, 68 E. C. L. 373, 3 C. & K. 215, 1 Starke 354, 2 E. C. L. 138 ; Matter of Fawcett, 2 De G. M. & G. 439, 51 Eng. Ch. 344, 42 Eng. Reprint 942. 42. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4902 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]; Allen v. Hunter, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 225, 6 McLean 303; Bell v. Daniels, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,247, 1 Bond 212, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 372. Prior caveat. One who has filed a caveat cannot be prejudiced by the omission of the commissioner to give him notice of the appli- cation for a patent by one who had filed a prior caveat. Phelps v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,072, 4 Blatchf. 362, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 479. 43. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4902 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388] ; Johnson v. Onion, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,401, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 170, 3 Hughes 290. 44. Allen v. Hunter, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 225, 6 McLean 303. 45. Cochrane v. Waterman, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,929, Cranch Pat. Dec. 121, McArthur Pat. Cas. 52. 46. The invention is not necessarily im- perfect when caveat is filed. Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,411, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351; Calhoun v. Hodgson, 70 Off. Gaz. 276. 47. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4902, as amended March 3, 1903, 32 U. S. St. at L. 1227 [U. S. Comp. St. Suppl. (1905) p. 666]. [V, C, 10, b] 900 [30 Cye.] PATENTS 11. SECRECY OF APPLICATIONS AND CAVEATS. Applications for patents and caveats are preserved in secrecy by the patent office because of the express provisions of the federal statutes tf that an inventor cannot be compelled to disclose a secret invention made or owned by him. 49 12. RIGHT TO INSPECT AND OBTAIN COPIES OF PATENT OFFICE RECORDS. Any one making proper application therefor and paying the fees provided by law may obtain copies of all public records of the patent office; 50 but they cannot obtain copies of pending applications to which they are not parties except upon a proper showing made to the commissioner of the right to and necessity for the copies or upon the order of a competent court. 51 13. COPIES OF RECORDS. Certified copies of records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office are received as evidence in all cases where the origi- nals could be evidence ; 52 and certified copies of the specifications and drawings of foreign letters patent in the United States patent office constitute prima facie evidence of the fact of the granting of such letters patent and of the date and contents thereof. 53 14. RULES OF PATENT OFFICE. The rules of procedure established for the pat- ent office have the force of law where not inconsistent with law and are binding upon the commissioner as well as upon applicants for patents. 54 15. CONCLUSIVENESS AND EFFECT OF PATENT OFFICE DECISIONS 55 a. In General. The decision of the commissioners of patents in the allowance and issue of a pat- ent creates only a prima facie right, and is subject to examination by the courts ; M but the commissioner of patents must abide by the decision of his prede- 48. U. S. Rev. St. (1873) 4902 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]; U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4908 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3390]. 49. Pract. Rule 15. The rule of secrecy in the patent office has no application to investigation of caveat by courts. Diamond Match Co. v. Oshkosh Match Works, 63 Fed. 984. In Canada all papers are open to inspec- tion save caveats. Pat. Act, 35 Viet. c. 26, 44. 50. U. S. v. Butterworth Patent Com'r, 81 Off. Gaz. 505; In re Drawbaugh, 66 Off. Gaz. 1451. A rude and insulting demand is not a legal demand. Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. (U. S.) 575, 14 L. ed. 548. In England an application to inspect pro- visional specification has been refused. Tol- son's Patent, 6 De G. M. & G. 422, 4 Wkly. Rep. 518, 55 Eng. Ch. 329, 43 Eng. Reprint 1297. 51. U. S. v. Patent Com'r, 19 D. C. 223; U. S. v. Butterworth Patent Com'r, 81 Off. Gaz. 505 ; U. S. v. Patent Com'r, 62 Off. Gaz. 1968; U. S. v. Patent Com'r, 54 Off. Gaz. 267; U. S. v. Hall, 48 Off. Gaz. 1263. 52. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 892 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 673]; Paine v. Trask, 56 Fed. 231; Toohey v. Harding, 1 Fed. 174, 4 Hughes 253; Johnson v. Beard, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,371, 12 Ban. & A. 50, 8 Off. Gaz. 435. A certified copy of the patent office record of an assignment is accepted in place of the original instrument. Carpenter v. Eberhard Mfg. Co., 78 Fed. 127; Standard Elevator Co. V. Crane Elevator Co., 76 Fed. 767, 22 C. C. A. 549; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. American Paper Pail, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 488; [V, C, 11] Dederick v. Whitman Agricultural Co., 26 Fed. 763: Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Lee v. Blandy, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,182, 1 Bond 361, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; Parker v. Haworth, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,738, 4 McLean 370, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 725. Contra, see National Cash Register Co. v. Navy Cash-Register Co., 99 Fed. 89; International" Tooth-Crown Co. v. Bennett, 72 Fed. 169; New York v. American Cable R. Co., 60 Fed. 1016, 9 C. C. A. 336; Paine v. Trask, 56 Fed. 231. In Canada the law is like that of the United States. Pat. Act, 35 Viet. c. 26, 2. 53. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 893 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 673] ; Schoerken v. Swift, etc., Co., 7 Fed. 469, 19 Blatchf. 209. Certificate by acting commissioner is suffi- cient. Woodworth c. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248. In England copy of foreign patent under seal of that country is proved without proof of official character of signer. In re Betts, 9 Jur. N. S. 137, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 577, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 49, 1 New Rep. 137, 11 Wkly. Rep. 221, 15 Eng. Reprint 621. 54. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 483 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 272]; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. Cas. (D. C.) 534; U. S. v. Allen, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 56; O'Hara v. Hawes, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,466. 55. On application for extension see infra, VII, B. 56. Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719; Hayes- Young Tie Plate Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co., 137 Fed. 80, 70 C. C. A. 1; Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. &S2; Allen v. Hunter, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 225, 6 McLean 303; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 901 cessor, granting a patent, so long as it is unreversed by a competent court. 57 Such being the prima facie presumption the burden of proof to establish a con- trary conclusion is upon the opposite party. 58 If the proofs do not overcome this presumption, and the device is of such a character, or relates to such special and peculiar subject-matters, that it does riot come within the range of common expe- rience or judicial knowledge, the prima facie showing must stand. 59 This pre- sumption in favor of the validity of a patent does not, however, obtain where the records and papers of the patent office show conclusively that the commis- sioner has acted without authority or has exceeded it, 60 or where his decision is impeached for fraud. 61 It cannot be shown, however, that the commissioner who granted the patent exceeded or irregularly exercised his authority, except by mat- ter apparent on the face of the patent. The patent is conclusively valid until it is successfully impeached in a direct proceeding properly instituted for that pur- pose. 62 If there was fraud practised in obtaining the patent, that is a matter between the patent office and the patentee. The patent, although obtained by fraud, must be respected and enforced until reversed or annulled by some pro- ceedings directly for that purpose. It is not exposed to the attacks of strangers or third persons for such reason. 63 b. As to Application and Procedure in Obtaining Patent. In the absence of fraud, the issue of a patent is conclusive evidence that the statutory requirements as to the application and procedure in the patent office have been complied with. 64 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Congress Rubber Co. v. Amer- ican Elastic Cloth Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,099a; Potter v. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,330, 4 Blatchf. 238, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277. No court is bound by the decision of the patent office granting a patent when immedi- ate steps are taken to test its validity in an action instituted for that purpose. Minne- apolis Harvester Works v. McCormick Har- vesting-Mach. Co., 28 Fed. 565. Conclusive as to state court. A patent con- ferred upon an inventor is conclusive of its own validity, and a state court cannot go behind it. Cowan v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 87. Due heed and consideration must always be given by the court or jury, as the case may be, to this presumption, but the real question in all cases is whether or not the evidence in the case is or is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie presumption which the patent af- fords. Los Angeles Art Organ Co. v. ^Eolian Co., 143 Fed. 880, 75 C. C. A. 88. Joint patent prima facie evidence that all patentees participated in invention. Hotch- kiss v. Greenwood, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,718, 4 McLean 456, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 730 [affirmed in 11 How. 248, 13 L. ed. 683]. 57. Matter of Hoevler,'21 D. C. 107; Ex p. Larowe, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,093; Ex p. Simp- son, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,878. 58. Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 982; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277. And see supra, V, C, 4, c; IV, A, 10, a; IV, C, 3. 59. Packard v. Lacing-Stud Co., 70 Fed. 66, 16 C. G. A. 639, holding that the fact that no machine has been constructed or put into practical operation under a patent is not of itself sufficient to show the patent inopera- tive, or to overcome the presumption of its validity arising from the fact of issuance. 60. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 216, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 288, 3 Story 742; Whitely v. Swayne, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,568, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 117 [affirmed in 7 Wall. 685, 19 L. ed. 199]. The commissioner of patents is an officer of limited authority, whose jurisdiction is restricted to the particular cases mentioned in the statute; and therefore, whenever it is apparent upon inspection of the patents that he has acted without authority, or has ex- ceeded it, his judgment must necessarily be regarded as invalid. Giant Powder Co. v. California Vigorit Powder Co., 4 Fed. 720, 6 Sawy. 508. 61. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 216, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 288, 3 Story 742. Fraud must be shown prima facie. Where fraud is charged upon a party in respect to his patent, it must be made out at least prima, facie. Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,567. 62. Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 535; Dorsey Harvester Revolving Rake Co. v. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395. 63. Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. 64. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Calcula- graph Co. v. W T ilson, 132 Fed. 20 [reversed on other grounds in 144 Fed. 91, 75 C. C. A. 249] ; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Pow- der Co., 19 Fed. 509; Hoe v. Cottrell, 1 Fed. 597, 17 Blatchf. 546; McMillan v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 377 ; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92. Compare Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 360 [/- [V, C, 15, b] 902 [30 Cye.] PATENTS e. As to Patentability. The decision of the patent office, upon an application for a patent, is never final upon the question of the novelty and utility of an inven- tion. Upon reason and authority, the new patent granted after a hearing merely makes out a prima facie case for the successful applicant, 65 and the original pre- sumptions of novelty and utility arising from the grant of a patent are strength- ened by its extension. 66 Even where an interference is claimed, and as against the parties to the hearing, the commissioner's decision is not conclusive. 67 But while the decision of the commissioner of patents is not resjudicata on the ques- tion of novelty, it is entitled to the highest respect, 68 and where patentable nov- elty has been denied by all the tribunals of the patent office, it will require a very clear case to obtain a reversal. 69 On the question of usefulness and cost of an invention, "it has been held that the testimony of machinists and manufacturers having practical knowledge of the subject-matter is of greater weight than the opinion of the commissioner of patents. 70 d. As to Originality and Priority. The issuance of a patent establishes prima facie the patentee's title as the original and first inventor. 71 So a previous deci- firmed in 62 Fed. 404, 10 C. C. A. 441], hold- ing that the action of the patent office in al- lowing a separation of claims into divisional applications is not conclusive, and the ques- tion whether the severance was proper and valid may be passed upon by the courts. See also McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. 587. As to giving notice and paying fees. A patent once granted cannot be subsequently impeached by evidence tending to show a want of compliance with the law as to giving notice, or paying fees, etc. Lamprey Boiler Furnace Mouth Protector Co. v. Economy Feed Water Heater Co., 62 Fed. 590 [affirmed in 65 Fed. 1000, 13 C. C. A. 271]; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92. As to taking of oaths. Recitals in letters patent in the absence of fraud are conclusive evidence that the necessary oaths were taken before the patent was granted. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Hancock Inspirator Co. v. Jenks, 21 Fed. 911; De Florez v. Raynolds, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,742, 3 Ban. & A. 292, 14 Blatchf. 505. The fact that a blank form of oath not executed is found among the papers cannot overcome the direct recital of the letters patent that the oath was taken, or the presumption that the requirements of the law were complied with in issuing the patent. Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. As to signatures. The presumption is that a patent is signed and countersigned rightly. Smith v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J. 529. 65. Alabama. Stephenson v. Allison, 123 Ala. 439, 26 So. 290. Ohio. Clark v. Bentel, 9 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 289, 12 Cine. L. Bui. 53. South Carolina. Wright v. Wilson, 11 Rich. 144. Tennessee. Green v. Stuart, 7 Baxt. 418. United States. Boyd v. Janesville Hay- Tool Co., 158 U. S. 260, 15 S. Ct. 837, 39 L.ed. 973; National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 185 (holding that the fact that a party to an interference proceeding permits the decision to go against him by de- [V, C, 15, c] fault does not make such decision conclusive against him upon the question of the patent- ability of the machine in a subsequent suit against him for infringement) ; Ney v. Ney Mfg. Co., 69 Fed. 405, 16 C. C. A. 293; Frank- fort Whisky Process Co. v. Mill Creek Dis- tilling Co., 37 Fed. 533; Shaver v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. 68; American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 312, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Serrell v. Collins, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,672, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 289; Spaulding v. Tucker, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,220, Deady 649 [reversed on other grounds in 13 Wall. 453, 20 L. ed. 515] ; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Crane, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,388, 1 Ban. & A. 494, Holmes 429, 6 Off. Gaz. 801. See 38 Cent. Dig. tit. " Patents," 164. The issuance of patents on two applica- tions which were pending at the same time, and relate to the same subject-matter, is in effect an adjudication by the patent office that there is a substantial difference betwen the inventions, and raises a presumption that the device of the later patent is not an infringe- ment of the earlier one. Boyd v. Janesville Hay-Tool Co., 158 U. S. 260, 15 S. Ct. 837, 39 L. ed. 973. 66. Cook f. Ernest, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,155, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396, 1 Woods 195, 2 Off. Gaz. 89 ; Evarts v. Ford, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,574. 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 587, 5 Off. Gaz. 58. 67. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. f. Crane, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,388, 1 Ban. & A. 494, Holmes 429, 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 68. Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westing- house Air-Brake Co., 70 Fed. 816, 17 C. C. A. 430; Cook v. Ernest, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,155, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396, 1 Woods 195, 2 Off. Gaz. 89. 69. In re Beswick, 16 App. Cas. (D. 0.) 345; In re Smith, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 181; In re Barratt, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 177. 70. Ex p. Arthur, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 563a. 71. Clark v. Bentel, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 289, 12 Cine. L. Bui. 53; Maurice v. Devol, 23 W. Va. 247; Ashcroft v. Boston, ete., R. Co., 97 U. S. 189, 24 L. ed. 982; Smith v. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 903 sion by the commissioner of patents in interference proceedings upon the question of fact as to priority of invention must be accepted as controlling, unless the con- trary is established by testimony which, in character and amount, carries thorough conviction. 72 Much more is this effect to be given to the decision of the commis- sioner when it has been affirmed by the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. 73 While the decision of the patent office on this question is never final, 74 even as against the parties to an interference proceeding, 75 it is neverthe- less entitled to sufficient weight in an infringement suit to cast the burden of proof on the party against whom it was rendered. 76 When the prima facie force of a patent as to priority of ' invention on the part of the patentee has been once destroyed by evidence of prior invention on the part of another, it cannot be restored by the patent itself, but only by specific testimony from witnesses. 77 e. As to Abandonment. The action of the commissioner of patents in grant- ing letters patent does not conclude the question whether there has been an abandonment. 78 16. REMEDY IN EQUITY FOR REFUSAL OF PATENT a. In General. Where there is an adverse decision by the court of appeals of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the commissioner in an application for patent or in an interference, the defeated party may file a bill in equity and retry the question. 79 The proceed- Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 952; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Hale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Oneonta, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 59; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 89 Fed. 721 [affirmed in 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968] ; Stonemetz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Folding-Mach. Co., 57 Fed. 601; Pacific Cable R. Co. v. Butte City St. R. Co., 52 Fed. 863 [affirmed in 60 Fed. 90, 8 C. C. A. 484]; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Gardiner, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,591, 3 Cliff. 408, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 224; Haskell v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,194, 3 Ban. & A. 553, 15 Off. Gaz. 509; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277 ; Spear v. Belson, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,223, McArthur Pat. Cas. 699 (holding that the issuance of a patent establishes prima facie the patentee's title as an original inventor,- and he must be considered as such even in a subsequent interference proceeding in which prior invention by another is shown, unless there is proof either positive or presumptive that he had knowledge thereof) ; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464. 72. Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120, 14 S. Ct. 772, 38 L. ed. 657 [reversing 42 Fed. 451]; John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 107 Fed. 290; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 [affirming 69 Fed. 408] ; Ecau- bert v. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. C. A. 73. The evidence must establish clearly the priority of a completed and useful machine over that of the patentee, or it is unavailing. To doubt upon this point is to resolve it in the negative. Parham v. American Button- hole, etc., Mach. Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,713, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468. Mere suggestion of mistake insufficient. The decision of the commissioner of patents is not final on the question of the priority of invention, but the successful applicant will not be enjoined from receiving his patent upon the mere suggestion that the commis- sioner was mistaken. Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. 117. 73. R. Thomas, etc., Co. v. Electric Porce- lain, etc., Co., Ill Fed. 923. 74. Hubel v. Tucker, 24 Fed. 701, 23 Blatchf. 297 ; Gloucester Isinglass, etc., Co. v. Brooks, 19- Fed. 426; Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. 117; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Perry v. Starrett, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,012, 3 Ban. & A. 485, 14 Off. Gaz. 599; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. f. Crane, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,388, 1 Ban. & A. 494, Holmes 429, 6 Off. Gaz. 801. 75. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Oo. v. Crane, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,388, 1 Ban. & A. 494, Holmes 429, 6 Off. Gaz. 801. But see Shuter v. Davis, 16 Fed. 564, 76. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 952; Stonemetz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Folding-Mach. Co., 57 Fed. 601 [affirmed in 58 Fed. 571, 7 C. C. A. 374] ; Gloucester Isinglass, etc., Co. v. Brooks, 19 Fed. 426; Wire Book Sewing Mach. Co. I?. Stevenson, 11 Fed. 155. 77. Barstow v. Swan, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,065. 78. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; U. S. Rifle, etc., Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,793, 2 Ban. & A. 493, 14 Blatchf. 94, 11 Off. Gaz. 373 [affirmed in 118 U. S. 22, 6 S. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 53]. 79. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3392]; Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; McKnight v. Metal Volatilization Co., 128 Fed. 51. Conditions precedent. Right of appeal must be exhausted. Kirk v. Patent Com'r, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 229. [V, C, 16, a] 904 [30 Cye.] PATENTS ing is original in its nature and not appellate, 80 and new evidence may be pre- sented. 81 In interference proceedings, whether a party not involved in the suit was the first inventor is not in issue. 82 The complainant is not entitled to a decree as a matter of right but must establish it. 82 * Where there is no interfering claimant a copy of the bill must be served upon the commissioner of patents, and in such case all costs and expenses of the proceedings must be paid by the complainant whether the decision is in his favor or not. 83 The court has no power to enjoin the commissioner from issuing a patent pending suit. 84 A judgment of the court that the applicant is entitled to a patent will authorize the commissioner to issue. 85 b. Time and Place of Suit. The suit mus't be brought within one year, 86 and must be brought in the district in which defendant is an inhabitant or may be found. 87 The commissioner of patents is a resident of the District of Columbia and the suit must be brought there against him where there is no interfering party, 88 unless he consents to be sued in another district. 89 e. Burden of Proof. In a suit in equity to obtain a patent, the burden is upon the complainant to prove his right beyond a reasonable doubt. 90 VI. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT. 91 A. Form and Contents 1. As AN INSTRUMENT. A patent is an instrument issued in the name of the United States of America, under the seal of the patent office, signed by the commissioner of patents, containing a short title or descrip- tion of the invention or discovery indicating its nature and design, and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years of the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery throughout the United States and the territories thereof, and must refer to the specification for the par- ticulars thereof. 92 So, by the provisions of the statute, it is necessary that a 80. Dover v. Greenwood, 154 Fed. 854; Minneapolis Harvester Works v. McCormick Harvesting-Mach. Co., 28 Fed. 565; Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. 321; New York Belting, etc., Co. v. Sibley, 15 Fed. 386; Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. 117; In re Squire, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,269, 3 Ban. & A. 133, 12 Off. Gaz. 1025. Claims considered. Complainant is con- fined to claims passed on by patent office. Durham v. Seymour, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 78; Wheaton v. Kendall, 85 Fed. 666. 81. Durham v. Seymour, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 78; Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33 ; In re Squire, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,269, 3 Ban. & A. 133, 12 Off. Gaz. 1025. 82. Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 5 C. C. A. 33. Questions of fact. Where the question which of two applicants for a patent for the same invention was the true inventor depends on questions of fact, the court, in an action brought under U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3392], by the unsuccessful applicant to compel an issuance of the patent to him, must be very clearly satisfied that the decision of the patent office tribunals between the two was erroneous be- fore it will be justified in reversing the same. Gillette v. Sendelbach, 146 Fed. 758, 77 C. C. A. 55. 82a. Davis v. Garrett, 152 Fed. 723. 83. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3392]. Expenses are paid by complainant only where there is no opposing party save the commissioner. Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. 321. Parties. In interference cases the com- [V, C, 16, a] missioner is not a necessary party. Graham 17. Teter, 25 Fed. 555. The secretary of the interior is not a proper party. Kirk v. Pat- ent Com'r, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 229. 84. Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. 141; Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. 117. 85. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3392]. In an interference where the issue is not patentable there can be no judgment. Hill v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693, 10 S. Ct. 228, 33 L. ed. 502; Leslie v. Tracy, 100 Fed. 475. 86. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4894. The statute relating to delay in prosecut- ing applications applies to bill in equity. Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432, 7 S. Ct. 1290, 30 L. ed. 1223. 87. Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432, 7 S. Ct. 1290, 30 L. ed. 1223; Bernardin v. Northall, 77 Fed. 849; Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Marble, 20 Fed. 117. 88. Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128, 5 S. Ct. 796, 29 L. ed. 119. 89. Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Marble, 20 Fed. 117. 90. Durham v. Seymour, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 78; Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120, 14 S. Ct. 772, 38 L. ed. 657 [reversing 42 Fed. 451]; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., 77 Fed. 630, 23 C. C. A. 367 [affirming 69 Fed. 408]. 91. Decisions of United States courts as to validity as precedents for other courts see COURTS, 11 Cyc. 752. Validity of agreement not to contest patent see CONTRACTS, 9 Cyc. 515. 92. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4883, as PATENTS [30 Cye.] 905 copy of the specification and drawings be annexed to the patent and form a part thereof. 93 2. RECORD. The patent together with the specification must be recorded in the patent office in books kept for that purpose. 94 3. DATE OF ISSUE. Every patent shall issue within three months from date of payment of final fee, which fee must be paid within six months from date of allowance and notice to applicant or to his agent. 95 A patent cannot be antedated. 96 B. Validity 1. IN GENERAL. Where the statutory requirements in the issue of the patent have not been complied with the patent is invalid and this may be shown at any time, 97 although as a general rule a patent is not subject to collateral attack for defects not appearing on the face of the patent. 98 As has already amended April 11, 1902, 32 U. S. St. at L. 95 [U. S. Comp. St. Suppl. (1905) p. 662]; U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4884 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3381]. Prior to the amendment of April 11, 1902, patents had to be signed by the secretary of the interior or an assist- ant secretary and had to be countersigned by the commissioner of patents, and a failure to comply with the statutory provisions, such as the omission of the signature of the sec- retary of the interior, is fatal to the validity of the patent. Marsh v. Nichols, 128 U. S. 605, 9 S. Ct. 168, 32 L. ed. 538. The acting commissioner may sign patents. Smith v. Mercer, 22 Fed. Gas. No. 13,078, 5 ?a. L. J. 529; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Gas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248. In Canada the law is like that in the United States except that the time is six, twelve, or eighteen years as elected. Pat. Act, 35 Viet. c. 25, 10. 93. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4884 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3381]. Drawing is part of patent. Poupard v. Fardell, 18 Wkly. Rep. 127 ; Reg. v. La Force, 4 Can. Exch. 14. The drawings of a patent are not required to be working plans, but are merely illustra- tive, to be read in connection with the specifi- cation and claims, and a patented device will not be held inoperative merely because of im- perfections in the drawing in respect to the dimensions or relative position of parts of the mechanism. Wold v. Thayer, 148 Fed. 227, 78 C. C. A. 350 [affirmed in 142 Fed. 776]. 94. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4883; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. English practice. Patent must be en- rolled by patentee within the time fixed and cannot be kept secret. In re Brough, 7 Beav. 104, 29 Eng. Ch. 104, 49 Eng. Reprint 1002; Ex p. Beck, 1 Bro. Ch. 578, 28 Eng. Reprint 1308; Ex p. Hoops, 6 Ves. 599, 31 Eng. Re- print 1215. Master of rolls can correct only clerical errors. In re Dismore, 18 Beav. 538, 52 Eng. Reprint 211; In re Sharp, 3 Beav. 245, 10 L. J. Ch. 86, 43 Eng. Ch. 245, 49 Eng. Reprint 96; In re Redmund, 6 L. J. Ch. 0. S. 183, 5 Russ. 44, 5 Eng. Ch. 44, 38 Eng. Reprint 943. 95. U. S. Rev. St. 4885 as amended May 23, 1908, Public No. 132 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382]. Where patentee refuses to accept patent because of error therein and it is canceled and an amended patent issued, it dates from amendment. Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson County R. Co., 23 led. 593. Reallowance and issuance of patent more than six months after the first allowance does not invalidate it. Western Electric Co. v. North Electric Co., 135 Fed. 79, 67 C. C. A. 553. English practice. Patent is effective when seal applied and before enrolment. Devon- shire v. Neill, L. R. 2 Ir. 132, 146; Russell t>. Ledsam, 9 Jur. 557, 14 L. J. Exch. 353, 14 M. & W. 574 {.affirmed in 16 L. J. Exch. 145, 16 M. & W. 633 (affirmed in 1 H. L. Cas. 687, 9 Eng. R/eprint 931)]. Patent not given date of foreign application under interna- tional convention unless requested within seven months. Acetylene Illuminating Co. v. United Alkali Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 494, 71 L. J. Ch. 301, 50 Wkly. Rep. 361. 96. Marsh v. Nichols, 128 U. S. 605, 9 S. Ct. 168, 32 L. ed. 538; Gramme Electrical Co. v. Arnoux, etc., Electric Co., 17 Fed. 838, 21 Blatchf. 450. 97. Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 S. Ct. 202. 32 L. ed. 576; Marsh v. Nichols, 128 U. 8. 605, 9 S. Ct. 168, 32 L. ed. 538; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 593, 28 L. ed. 493; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Moffitt i: Gaar, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,690, 1 Bond 315, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 610. See supra, I, A, 4. Clerical error by patent office will not invalidate. Deere v. Arnold, 95 Fed. 169, 92 Fed. 186. Compliance with prerequisites need not be recited. Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380. 98. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Eureka Clothes Wringing Mach. Co. v. Bailey Washing, etc., Mach. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488, 20 L. ed. 209; Provi- dence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson County R. Co., 23 Fed. 593 ; Hoe v. Cottrell, 1 Fed. 597, 17 Blatchf. 546; American Wood-Paper Co. v. Glens Falls Paper Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 321, 8 Blatchf. 513, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 324; Birdsall v. Mc- Donald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 165, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Crompton v. Belknap [VI, B, 1] 906 [30 Cye.] PATENTS been shown in previous chapters, it is invalid if an} 7 of the statutory bars to its grant existed. 99 2. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION. A patent is invalid if it does not disclose the invention with such clearness as to enable one skilled in the art to make and use it. 1 3. NAME OF PATENTEE. Clerical errors in the name of the patentee will not render the patent void, provided the patent contains a description of him by which he can be identified. 2 4. DECEPTIVE PATENT a. In General. If there be a false suggestion of a material fact set forth in the specification, the patent is invalid. 3 Inaccuracies in Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 536 ; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,028, 6 Blatchf . 429, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 580 ; Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,042, 9 Blatchf. 18, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615 [.reversed on other grounds in 19 Wall. 287, 22 L. ed. 1251. See infra, VI, E. See also supra, V, C, 15. 99. See supra, II; III. Irregular grant of a subsequent patent for the same thing will not invalidate a patent. Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630 [reversed on other grounds in 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275]. In Canada a patent is void if not manu- factured in Canada within two years and if importations are allowed after one year. St. 35 Viet. c. 26, 28; 38 Viet. c. 14, 2. Im- portation of parts will -not invalidate. An- derson Tire Co. v. American Dunlop Tire Co., 5 Can. Exch. 82. Trifling and accidental im- portation will not invalidate. Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. Came, 18 Quebec Super. Ct. 44. 1. See supra, I, A, 3; V, B, 2, a. And see Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245; B6n6 v. Jeantet, 129 U. S. 683, 9 S. Ct. 428, 32 L. ed. 803; Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; Panzl v. Battle Island Paper Co., 138 Fed. 48, 70 C. C. A. 474 [modifying 132 Fed. 607] ; Windle v. Parks, etc., Mach. Co., 134 Fed. 381, 67 C. C. A. 363; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384. The description is sufficient if it enables those skilled in the art to make it. Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863; Lawther v. Hamil- ton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 L. ed. 325; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171, 23 L. ed. 275; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860; Weg- mann v. Corcoran, 13 Ch. D. 65, 41 L. T. Rep. N. S. 358, 28 Wkly. Rep. 331; Plimpton v. Malcolmson, 3 Ch. D. 531, 45 L. J. Ch. 505, 34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 340 ; Parkes v. Stevens, L. R. 8 Eq. 358, 38 L. J. Ch. 627, 17 Wkly. Rep. 846 [affirmed in L. R. 5 Ch. 36, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 18 Wkly. Rep. 233] ; Felton v. Greaves, 3 C. & P. 611, 14 E. C. L. 743; Simpson v. Holliday, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 99, 13 Wkly. Rep. 577 [affirmed in L. R. 1 H. L. 315, 35 L. J. Ch. 811]. Omissions obvious to mechanic will not in- [VI, B, 1] validate. Crossley v. Beverly, 9 B. & C. 63, 17 E. C. L. 38, 3 C. & P. 513, 14 E. C. L. 690, 7 L. J. K. B. O. S. 127, M. & M. 283, 22 E. C. L. 522, 1 Russ. & M. 166 note, 5 Eng. Ch. 166 note, 39 Eng. Reprint 65. Drawings may aid in disclosure. Bloxam v. Elsee, 6 B. & C. 169, 13 E. C. L. 88, 1 C. & P. 558, 12 E. C. L. 320, 9 D. & R. 215, 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 104, R. & M. 187, 30 Rev. Rep. 275; Daw v. Eley, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 399, 14 Wkly. Rep. 126. The means for accomplishing a result cov- ered by a patent need not be illustrated therein, if they are sufficiently described in the specification. Hillard v. Fisher Book Typewriter Co., 151 Fed. 34 [affirmed in 159 Fed. 439]. Ambiguous or misleading patent is void. Hastings v. Brown, 1 E. & B. 450, 17 Jur. 647, 22 L. J. Q. B. 161, 72 E. C. L. 450; Patent Type-Founding Co. v. Richard, Johns. 381, 6 Jur. N. S. 39, 70 Eng. Reprint 470; Turner v. Winter, 1 T. R. 602. Particular descriptions held insufficient see Smith v. Murray, 27 Fed. 69; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Evans v. Cham- bers, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,555, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 7, 2 Wash. 125 ; Whitney 0. Emmett, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17.585, Baldw. 303, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Betts'r. Neilson, L. R. 3 Ch. 429, 37 L. J. Ch. 321, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 165, 16 Wkly. Rep. 524; Hinks v. Safety Lighting Co., 4 Ch. D. 607. 46 L. J. Ch. 185, 36 L. T, Rep. N. S. 391; Rex. v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Aid. 345, 20 Rev. Rep. 465 ; Sturz v. De la Rue, 7 L. J. Ch. O. S. 47, 5 Russ. 322, 5 Eng. Ch. 322, 38 Eng. Reprint 1048, 29 Rev. Rep. 24; Taylor v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 21 Ont. App. 361. Particular descriptions held sufficient see Valentine v. Marshall, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,812a; Wheeler v. Clipper Mower, etc., Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,493, 10 Blatchf. 181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 2 Off. Gaz. 442 ; Ralston v. Smith, 11 H. L. Cas. 223, 20 C. B. N. S. 28, 35 L. J. C. P. 49, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 11 Reprint 1318; Smith v. Mutchmore, 11 U. C. C. P. 458; Smith v. Ball, 21 U. C. Q. B. 122. 2. Bignall v. Harvey, 4 Fed. 334, 18 Blatchf. 353 ; Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,337, 1 Ban. & A. 177, 6 Off. Gaz. 34, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 227. 3. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 463, 21 L. ed. 517; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 90T matters not vital, will not, however, invalidate the patent if they are due to mistake. 4 b. Suppression of Facts. A fraudulent suppression of material facts about the invention in the specification will render the patent void. 5 To invalidate .the patent, however, the omissions must have been made with intent to deceive. 6 Omissions due to mistake or error of judgment will not invalidate the patent, pro- vided the specification is sufficient to enable those skilled in the art to make and use the invention. 7 5. JOINDER OF SEVERAL INVENTIONS. A patent is not invalid for misjoinder therein of claims to separate inventions if those inventions are connected in design and operation and mutually contribute to the production of a single result. 8 6. DOUBLE PATENTING. Where more than one patent is granted to one inventor for a single invention, the first only is valid. 9 The- invention covered by two pat- 620, 20 L. ed. 860 ; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Child v. Adams, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,673, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 3 Wall. Jr. 20 ; Delano v. Scott, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,753, Gilp. 489, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 700; Reg. v. Cutler, 14 Q. B. 372 note, 68 E. C. L. 373, 3 C. & K. 215, 1 Stark. 354, 2 E. C. L. 138. See supra, V, B, 2, f ; infra, VI, B, 4, b. The title must correctly indicate what is described or the patent is void. Cook v. Pearce, 8 Q. B. 1044, 8 Jur. 499, 13 L. J. Q. B. 189, 55 E. C. L. 1044 ; Rex v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Aid. 345, 20 Rev. Rep. 465; Croll v. Edge, 9 C. B. 479, 19 L. J. C. P. 261, 14 Jur. 553, 67 E. C. L. 479. Title may be broader than description see Oxley v. Holden, 8 C. B. N. S. 666, 30 L. J. C. P. 68, 2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 464, 8 Wkly. Rep. 626, 98 E. C. L. 666 ; Patent Bottle Envelope Co. v. Seymer, 5 C. B. N. S. 164, 5 Jur. N. S. 174, 28 L. J. C. P. 22, 94 E. C. L. 164 ; Nick- ells v. Haslam, 8 Jur. 474, 13 L. J. C. P. 146, 7 M. & G. 378, 8 Scott N. R. 97, 49 E. C. L. 378; Neilson v. Harford, 11 L. J. Exch. 20, 8 M. & W. 806. 4. Hemolin Co. v. Harway Dyewood, etc., Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 54, 70 C. C. A. 480 [affirm- ing 131 Fed. 483] ; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Blanchard's Gun Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 258, Fish. Pat. Rep. 184. Mistake as to theory of operation will not invalidate. See supra, V, B, 2, d. 5. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co. v. Dubois, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 47, 20 L. ed. 265; Electric Boot, etc., Finishing Co. v. Little, 75 Fed. 276 [af- firmed in 138 Fed. 732, 71 C. C. A. 270]. And see supra, V, B, 2, f. English practice. Patent must distinguish between what is original and what was com- municated from abroad. Renard v. Levin- stein, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 177. Must describe best mode of practising invention. Wood V. Zimmer, Holt 58, 17 Rev. Rep. 605, 3 E. C. L. 32; Neilson v. Harford, 11 L. J. Exch. 20, 8 M. & W. 806. Suppression not shown see Edison, etc., Electric Light Co. v. Woodhouse, 32 Ch. D. 520, 55 L. J. Ch. 243, 55 L. T. Rep. N. S. 263, 34 Wkly. Rep. 626. 6. Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co., 53 Fed. 113; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Rus- sell, 37 Fed. 676 ; Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co. t?. American Clay-Bird Co., 34 Fed. 328 ; Gray 17. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120 ; Park v. Little, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,715, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 17, 3 Wash. 196; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,000, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40. 7. Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Michaelis v. Roessler, 34 Fed. 325; McKesson v. Carnick, 9 Fed. 44, 19 Blatchf. 158; Grant v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,701; Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. 9; Singer v. Walmsley, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,900, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558 ; Whitney v. Carter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,583. 8. U. S. v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S. Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555, 109 Off. Gaz. 549; Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. (U. S.) 437, 12 L. ed. 505; Sanitas Nut Food Co. v. Voigt, 139 Fed. 551, 71 C. C. A. 535; Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb, 89 Fed. 982; Fire- Extinguisher Case, 21 Fed. 40. And see supra, V, B, 7. Machine and separate parts may be claimed in one case. Holly v. Vergennes Mach. Co., 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327; Foss V. Herbert, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,9-57, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31. Process and article must be covered by separate claims. Merrill v. Yeomans, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,472, 1 Ban. & A. 47, Holmes 331 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 568, 24 L. ed. 235]. Designs. Entire design and parts may be claimed. Dobson v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 S. Ct. 945, 29 L. ed. 177 {.re- versing 10 Fed. 385]. 9. Hill v. Patent Com'r, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 266; Jackson v. Lawton, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 23, 6 Am. Dec. 311; Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121; Underwood v. Gerber, 149- U. S. 224, 13 S. Ct. 854, 37 L. ed. 710; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed- Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154; Mosler Safe, etc., Co. v. Mosler, 127 U. S. 354, 8 S. Ct. 1148, 32 L. ed. 182; Suffolk Mfg. Co. v. Hay- den, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315, 18 L. ed. 76; Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 90 Fed. 732, 33 C. C. A. 255; Palmer v. John E. Brown Mfg. Co., 84 Fed. 454; Thompson- [VI, B, 6] 908 [30 Cye.] PATENTS ents is not different merely because it is differently stated in the claims, since there must be a material difference in the subject-matter and not merely in the scope of the claims. 10 7. CLAIMS 11 a. In General. Some claims made in a patent maybe invalid without invalidating the entire patent, since each claim is separately considered and is a separate statement of the field intended to be covered. 12 Houston Electric Co. v. Western Electric Co., 70 Fed. 69, 16 C. C. A. 642; Russell v. Kern, 69 Fed. 94, 16 C. C. A. 154; Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co., 63 Fed. 962, 11 C. C. A. 342; Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 62 Fed. 404, 10 C. C. A. 441; Electrical Accumu- lator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682; Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs, 39 Fed. 25; McMillan v. Rees, 1 Fed. 722; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630; Morris v. Huntington, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,831, 1 Paine 348, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 448; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Union R. Co., 83 Off. Gaz. 597; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. . Hoosick R. Co., 80 Off. Gaz. 967; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. West- ern Electric Co., 73 Off. Gaz. 1123. English. Crown may grant second patent. National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Inter- changeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Barnes Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Walworth Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 605, 9 C. C. A. 154; In re Gething, L. R. 9 Ch. 633; Ex p. Manceaux, L. R. 6 Ch. 272, 18 Wkly. Rep. 1184; In re Bering, 13 Ch. D. 393, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 634, 28 Wkly. Rep. 710. If issued on the same day, the patentee may elect. H. W. Johns Mfg. Co. v. Robert- son, 89 Fed. 504; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682. Or they are presumed to have issued in numerical order. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Standard Stopper Co., 136 Fed. 841, 69 C. C. A. 200. Splitting up inventions not approved. Nor- den v. Spaulding, 24 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286. 10. In re Creveling, 25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530; Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121; Otis Elevator Co. f. Portland Co., 127 Fed. 557, 62 C. C. A. 339 [affirming 119 Fed. 928]; Thomson- Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 71 Fed. 39-6, 18 C. C. A. 145; Root v. Sioux City Cable R. Co., 42 Fed. 412. Different parts of the same machine may be separately patented. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Black River Traction Co., 135 Fed. 759, 68 C. C. A. 461; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341 ; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 71 Fed. 396, 18 C. C. A. 145; Cahn v. Wong Town On, 19 Fed. 424, 9 Sawy. 630; McMillan v. Rees, 1 Fed. 722; Ex p. Hayden, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,256; Hayden v. James, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,260. Party may patent improvement upon his own patented device. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Ryan V. Newark Spring Mattress Co., 96 Fed. 100 ; Aspinwall Mfg. Co. 1?. Gill, 32 Fed. 697; Mathews v. Flower, 25 [VI, B, 6] Fed. 830. Patent for improvement does not invalidate subsequent broad patent granted on a co-pending application. Cleveland Foun- dry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co., 131 Fed. 853, 68 C. C. A. 233; Badische Anilia, etc., Fabrik v. Klipstein, 125 Fed. 543; Westing- house Electric, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Dayton Fan, etc., Co., 106 Fed. 724; Allington, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Globe Co., 89 Fed. 865 ; Allington, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Glor, 83 Fed. 1014; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 712, 26 C. C. A. 107; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 257 [re- versed on other grounds in 71 Fed. 396, 18 C. C. A. 145] ; Eagle Mfg. Co. r. Bradley, 35 Fed. 295; Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., 33 Fed. 254; Singer v. Braunsdorf, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,897, 7 Blatchf. 521; Independent Electric Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 78 Off. Gaz. 797; National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co., 74 Off. Gaz. 1588; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 30 Off. Gaz. 180; Swift 17. Jenks, 27 Off. Gaz. 621; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 21 Off. Gaz. 1536; Graham v. McCormick, 21 Off. Gaz. 1533. Machine, process, and produce may be separately patented. Simonds Rolling-Mach. Co. i?. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 201; McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. 587; Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,583, 2 Cliff. 351, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Goodyear v. Wait, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,587, 5 Blatchf. 468, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 242; Merrill v. Yeomans, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,472, 1 Ban. & A. 47, Holmes 331, 5 Off. Gaz. 268 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 568, 24 L. ed. 235]. Designs. Design patent invalid in view of prior mechanical patent. Gary Mfg. Co. v. Neal, 90 Fed. 725. Mechanical patent invalid in view of prior design patent. Williams Calk Co. i?. Never- slip Mfg. Co., 136 Fed. 210 [affirmed in 145 Fed. 928, 76 C. C. A. 466]. 11. Disclaimers see infra, IX. 12. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4917, 4922 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 3393, 3390]; Hotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 314; Sey- mour v. McCormick, 19 How. (U. S.) 90, 15 L. ed. 557; Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. 783; Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 124, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Peterson v. Wooden, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,038, 3 McLean 248, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 116; Rumford Chemical Works v. Lauer, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,135, 10 Blatchf. 122, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615, 3 Off. Gaz. 349; Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,368, 2 Blatchf. 37, Fish. Pat. Rep. 144. Patent may be valid for part. Frearson v. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 909 b. Excessive Claims. Where claims are so broad as to include prior inven- tions they are invalid, 13 and where they do not identify the invention of the patentee they are invalid. 14 8. DELAY OF APPLICATION IN PATENT OFFICE. A patent is not rendered invalid by delays in the patent office where the applicant for patent takes proper action in prosecution of his application within the time fixed by statute. 15 9. JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE VALIDITY. A patent is merely prima facie valid, and the United States courts have jurisdiction to declare them invalid in whole or in part, where the issue as to their validity is raised in a proper proceeding. 16 In a suit for infringement of a patent the court may give judgment for defendant on the ground that the patent is invalid, but it cannot in such a proceeding annul the patent, and in the case of interfering patents may declare one void ; out it ia Loe, 9 Ch. D. 48, 27 Wkly. Rep. 183; Plimp- ton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412, 47 L. J. Ch. 211, 37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 56, 26 Wkly. Rep. 285. Where one of several distinct parts claimed by the patentee is old, the entire patent is for that reason void. Kay v. Marshall, 5 Bing. N. Cas. 492, 8 L. J. C. P. 261, 7 Scott 548, 35 E. C. L. 266 [affirmed in 8 Cl. & F. 245, 8 Eng. Reprint 96, 5 Jur. 1028, West 682, 9 Eng. Reprint 643] ; Morgan v. Seaward, 1 Jur. 527, 6 L. J. Exch. 153, 2 M. & W. 544, M. & H. 55. 13. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427, 17 L. ed. 168; Adjustable Window Screen Co. v. Bough ton, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 81, 1 Ban. & A. 327, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 251; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Hopkins, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Cor- bin, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,695, 3 Ban. & A. 19-9, 14 Blatchf. 396, 14 Off. Gaz. 3 [affirmed in 103 U. S. 786, 26 L. ed. 610]; Hovey v. Stevens, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,746, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 567, 3 Woodb. & M. 17; Odiorne v. Winkley, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,432, 2 Gall. 51, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 52; Stanley v. Hewitt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,285; Stanley v. Whipple, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,286, 2 McLean 35, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 1; Stanley Rule, etc., Co. v. Davis, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,288; Turner v. Johnson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,261, 2 Cranch C. C. 287, Fish. Pat. Rep. 4; Tyler v. Deval, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,307, 1 Code Rep. (N. Y.) 30; Watson v. Bladen, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,277, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 510, 4 Wash. 580; Whitney v. Em- mett, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,585, Baldw. 303, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb. Pat. Cas. 40. And see supra, V, B. Claim so broad as to include substances which will not perform the necessary func- tions is void. Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co., 159 U. S. 465, 16 S. Ct. 75, 40 L. ed. 221 [affirming 40 Fed. 21] ; De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co., 117 Fed. 240, 54 C. C. A. 272 ; Rickard v. Du Bon, 97 Fed. 96; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Wegmann v. Corcoran, 13 Ch. D. 65, 41 L. T. Rep. N. S. 358, 28 Wkly. Rep. 331; Stevens v. Keating, 2 Exch. 772, 19 L. J. Exch. 57. Excessive claim is void. Minter v. Mower, 6 A. & E. 735, 6 L. J. K. B. 183, 1 N. & P. 595, W. W. & D. 262, 33 E. C. L. 387 ; Cam- pion v. Benyon, 3 B. & B. 5, 6 Moore C. P. 71, 23 Rev. Rep. 549, 7 E. C. L. 574; Hill v. Thompson, Holt N. P. 636, 3 E. C. L. 249, 3 Meriv. 629, 17 Rev. Rep. 156, 36 Eng. Re- print 239, 2 Moore C. P. 424, 8 Taunt. 375, 20 Rev. Rep. 488, 4 E. C. L. 190; Cochrane v. Smethurst, 1 Stark. 205, 18 Rev. Rep. 761, 2 E C T 84 14. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Manhattan Gen. Constr. Co, V. Helios-Upton Co., 135 Fed. 785; Hoke En- graving Plate Co. v. Schraubstadter, 47 Fed. 506; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 Ch. 570, 20 Wkly. Rep. 649. 15. U. S. I?. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224, 17 S. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 144 {af- firming 68 Fed. 542, 15 C. C. A. 569] ; Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Car- riage Co., 117 Fed. 314 [affirmed in 120 Fed. 672, 57 C. C. A. 183] ; Thomson-Houston Elec- tric Co. v. Winchester Ave. R. Co., 71 Fed. 192; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682; Brush Electric Co. v. Electrical Accumulator Co., 47 Fed. 48; Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 53, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1 ; Dental Vul- canite Co. v. Wetherbee, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,810, 2 Cliff. 555, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87; Howard v. Christy, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,754, 2 Ban. & A. 457, 10 Off. Gaz. 981; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,414, 1 Biss. 468, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 523; Sparkman v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,208, 1 Blatchf. 205, Fish. Pat. Rep. 110, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 122. 16. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 711, 4918, 4920 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]. And see infra, VI, E; XIII, A, 1; XIII, C, 2, a. State courts have no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a patent. Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 430. In Canada the minister of agriculture de- termines disputes as to validity under Pat. Act (1872), 28; Smith 17. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46 [affirming 7 Ont. App. 628]; Toronto Tel. Mfg. Co. v. Bell Tel. Co., 2 Can. Exch. 524; In re Bell Tel. Co., 9 Ont. 339; In re Bell Tel. Co., 7 Ont. 605. [VI, B, 9] 910 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS only by suit instituted by the government that the United States courts can annul and cancel a patent. 17 C. Correction or Amendment of Patents. 18 The officials of the govern- ment have authority to correct errors made by them in the issue of patents, 19 and errors made by the applicant may be corrected by disclaimer or reissue. 20 D. Interfering" Patents 21 !. IN GENERAL. Interfering patents are those which claim the same invention in whole or in part. 22 Where two patents are issued, some or all of the claims of which are substantially the same, any one interested in either patent or any one interested in the working of the invention claimed under either of them may have relief against the interfering patentee by suit in equity and the court may adjudge either patent invalid. 23 2. PROCEEDINGS. The suit is governed by ordinary equity rules, 24 and must be brought in the district where defendant may be found. 25 If the bill fails to show that defendants are the owners of the alleged interfering patent it is bad on spe- cial demurrer. 26 Suit to annul an interfering patent may be joined with suit for infringement. 27 It is not necessary for defendant to file a cross bill to obtain affirmative relief. 28 The better opinion is that the evidence should be confined to the question of priority of invention between the patentees, 29 although there are authorities to the effect that evidence as to the state of the art is admissible. 80 The suit is independent of any interference in the patent office, and the deposi- 17. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4918, 4920 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; U. S. V. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. ed. 450; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 858. In Canada the court may determine valid- ity in an infringement suit. St. 35 Viet. c. 26, 26; Maw v. Massey-Harris Co., 13 Mani- toba 252. 18. Reissues see infra, VIII. 19. Marsh v. Nichols, 128 U. S. 605, 9 S. Ct. 1G8, 32 L. ed. 538; Bell v. Hearne, 19 How. (U, S.) 252, 15 L. ed. 614; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,017, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 517, 1 Woodb. & M. 389; Reed v. Street, 34 Off. Gaz. 339. English practice. The master of the rolls may correct clerical errors. In re Johnson, 5 Ch. D. 503, 46 L. J. Ch. 555. Amendment by way of correction or explanation is per- missible but not to cover an enlarged or dif- ferent invention. Kelly v. Heathman, 45 Ch. D. 256, CO L. J. Ch. 22, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 517, 39 Wkly. Rep. 91; Marsden t;. Moser, 73 L. T. Rep. N. S. 667. Corrected by appli- cation to lord chancellor. In re Nickel, 5 Jur. 882, 1 Phil. 36, 19- Eng. Ch. 36, 41 Eng. Reprint 544. 20. See infra, VIII; IX. In Canada the law as to disclaimer and re- issue is much like the United States law. St. 35 Viet. c. 26, 19-20; 38 Viet. c. 14, 1. 21. Interferences on application see supra, V, C, 8. 22. Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 49 Fed. 370. See also Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714. 23. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4918 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Cantrell v. Wai- lick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 S. Ct. 970, 29 L. ed. 1017; Robertson v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. r. Western Electric Co., 72 Fed. 530, 19 C. C. A. 1; Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. 9. [VI, B, 9] Lozier, 69 Fed. 346; Ecaubert v. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. C. A. 73. That parties must claim as well as show the same invention see Stonemetz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Folding-Mach. Co., 57 Fed. 601; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 49 Fed. 370; Mor- ris v. Kempshall Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 121; Gold, etc., Ore Separating Co. v. U. S. Disintegrat- ing Ore Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,508, 6 Blatchf. 307, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 489. 24. Liggett, etc., Tobacco Co. t?. Miller, 1 Fed. 203, 1 McCrary 31. Laches. Long delay bj complainant in filing his bill after an adverse decision by the commissioner will be considered as bearing n the good faith of complainant's proceed- ing, no explanation of the delay being offered. Sawyer v. Massey, 25 Fed. 144. 25. Prentiss v. Ellsworth, 27 Off. Gaz. 623. 26. Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 47 Fed. 522. 27. American Roll-Paper Co. V. Knopp, 44 Fed. 609. Complainant may sue for infringement in- stead of under Rev. St. 4918. Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 59 Fed. 295, 8 C. C. A. 129. 28. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602; American Clay- Bird Co. v. Ligowski Clay-Bird Co., 31 Fed. 466; Lockwood v. Cleaveland, 6 Fed. 721. Where affirmative relief is prayed in the answer plaintiff cannot dismiss. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602. 29. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 84 Fed. 659 [reversed on other grounds in 90 Fed. 732, 33 C. C. A. 255] ; Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 47 Fed. 522 ; American Clay-Bird Co. v. Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co., 31 Fed. 466; Sawyer v. Massey, 25 Fed. 144; Pentlarge v. Pentlarge, 19- Fed. 817. 30. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 90 Fed. 732, 33 C. C. A. 255; Ecaubert v. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. C. A. 73; Foster PATENTS [30 Cye.] 911 tions there taken are not ordinarily admissible in evidence. 31 Where two patents interfere there is a rebuttable presumption that the patentee who first filed his application is the first inventor. 32 3. JUDGMENT. If there is no interference in fact the bill of complaint will be dismissed. 33 If there is an interference the court will declare the patent of the later inventor void in whole or in part, or as inoperative or invalid in a specified part of the United States in accordance with the interest of the parties, 34 and may grant relief by injunction when necessary to protect the rights of a party. 85 The judgment does not affect the rights of persons not parties to the suit unless they acquire title from one of the parties subsequently. 36 E. Annulment or Repeal. The United States government can maintain a suit in the United States courts to annul or cancel a patent on the ground that it was obtained through fraud, but no individual can bring or maintain such a suit. 87 The matter of instituting suit is within the control of the attorneys for the gov- ernment, and they are not required to institute such suit at the request of a party who declares the patent to be invalid. 88 Suit may be maintained by the govern- ment not only when it has a proprietary and pecuniary interest in the result, but also when it is necessary'in order to enable it to discharge its obligations to the public, and sometimes when the purpose and effect are simply to enforce the rights of an individual ; 89 and prayers for cancellation of two patents relating to the same v. Lindsay, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,975, 1 Ban. & A. 605, 7 Off. Gaz. 514. 31. Ecaubert v. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. C. A. 73; Atkinson v. Boardman, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 607. Where the depositions cannot be retaken, it has been held that they may be read. Clow v. Baker, 36 Fed. 692. 32. Ashton Valve Co. v. Coale Muffler, etc., Co., 50 Fed. 100 [affirmed in 52 Fed. 314, 3 C. C. A. 98] ; American Roll-Paper Co. v. Knopp, 44 Fed. 609; Pelton v. Waters, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,913, 1 Ban. & A. 599, 7 Off. Gaz. 425. 33. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434. 20 L. ed. 858; Boston Pneumatic Power Co. i;. Eureka Patents Co., 139 Fed. 29; Sim- plex R. Appliance Co. v. Wands, 115 Fed. 517, 53 C. C. A. 171; Stonemetz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Folding-Mach. Co., 57 Fed. 601 ; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 49 Fed. 370; Electrical Accumu- lator Co. 17. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602; Morris v. Kempshall Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 121; Gold, etc., Ore Separating Co. v. U. S. Dis- integrating Ore Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,508, 6 Blatchf. 307, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 489. 34. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4918 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]. Court may de- clare either or both patents void. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 90 Fed. 732, 33 C. C. A. 255 ; Foster . Lindsay, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,975, 1 Ban. & A. 605, 7 Off. Gaz. 514. 35. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 69 Fed. 346; Sawyer v. Massey, 25 Fed. 144. 36. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4918 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Mowry v. Whit- ney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 858. Does not prevent suit on patent where claims are different. Brush v. Naugatuck R. Co., 24 Fed. 371, 23 Blatchf. 277. 37. U. S. 17. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. ed. 450; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 858; Ex p. Wood, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 603, 6 L. ed. 171 ; U. S. v. American Lumber Co., 85 Fed. 827, 29 C. C. A. 431; Atty.-Gen. v. Rumford Chemical Works, 32 Fed. 608 ; U. S. v. Gunning, 18 Fed. 511, 21 Blatchf. 516; Delano v. Scott, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,753, Gilp. 489, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 700 ; Merserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,488, 6 Blatchf. 356, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 483; Thomp- son v. Haight, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,956. English practice. Scire facias abolished, and now patents may be revoked on petition to court by attorney-general or a party inter- ested. Act (1883), 26. Bill in equity to set aside may be maintained by person inter- ested where fraud alleged. In re Avery, 36 Ch. D. 307, 56 L. J. Ch. 1007, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 506, 36 Wkly. Rep. 249; Atty.-Gen. v. Vernon, 2 Ch. Rep. 353, 21 Eng. Reprint 685, 1 Vern. Ch. 277, 23 Eng. Reprint 468; Re Edge, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 370, 38 Wkly. Rep. 698; Re Morgan, 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 713. Canadian practice. Scire facias to annul must be by attorney-general and not by pri- vate party. Reg. v. Pattee, 5 Ont. Pr. 292; Patent Elbow Co. v. Cunin, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 56. Not annulled because foreign patent expired. Reg. v. Ontario Gen. Engineering Co., 6 Can. Exch. 328. 38. New York, etc., Coffee Polishing Co. t?. New York Coffee Polishing Co., 9 Fed. 578, 20 Blatchf. 174. Canadian practice. Proceedings according to practice on scire facias in England. Smith v. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46 ; Reg. v. Ontario Gen. Engineering Co., 6 Can. Exch. 328; Peterson v. Crown Cork, etc., Co., 5 Can. Exch. 400; Reg. v. La Force, 4 Can. Exch. 14; Reg. v. Hall, 27 U. C. Q. B. 146. 39. U. S. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224, 17 S. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 144. When the bill to annul a patent is really in the interest of private parties, who have given bond to indemnify the government from [VI, E] 912 [30 Cye.] PATENTS subject and owned by the same party may be joined. 40 It cannot maintain a suit to repeal on grounds that have been sustained in a suit for infringement, 41 nor ask an injunction restraining the commencement or prosecution of suits for infringe- ment of a patent for the repeal of which they have begun an action. 42 The appropriate remedy is by bill in equity, 43 and actual fraud must be alleged and proved. 44 F. Estoppel to Dispute Validity 1. IN GENERAL. The issuance of a patent does not estop the patentee from proving that the invention claimed therein is not novel in the absence of bad faith in procuring such patent. 45 Nor, as a gen- eral rule, will a contest in the patent office upon the question of priority of inven- tion foreclose the defeated applicant for a patent from assailing the validity of the patent upon other grounds. 46 A patentee is, however, estopped to deny the correctness of the description in the specification of the existing art. 47 So also a patentee, who secures a correction limiting the life of his patent, is estopped, as against inf ringers, to deny the validity of the limitation. 48 Furthermore other persons associated with him in the ownership of rights under the patent are also estopped, in the absence of an affirmative showing that they were ignorant of his acts in procuring the limitation. 49 An answer in an infringement suit asserting the validity of a patent granted to defendant estops him to deny on the hearing the validity of a similar patent granted to plaintiff. 50 In a suit upon a license or contract, which contains a covenant upon the part of the licensee, by which the validity of the patent is admitted, and the licensee has had the benefit of the license, he is estopped to deny the validity of the patent by setting up anything contrary to the admissions in his contract. 51 So a covenant or agreement not to infringe estops the parties thereto from controverting the validity of the patent. 52 But it has been held that an arrangement made by two patentees, by way of com- promise to avoid litigation, will not be construed as an acknowledgment by either of the validity of the other's patent, so as to estop him or his assigns or licensees to deny its validity. 53 Nor does a mere mercantile agreement not to deal in cer tain patented machines operate as an estoppel to deny the validity of the patent. 54 2. ESTOPPEL OF INFRINGER. An inf ringer cannot deny the utility of the invention, although he may deny its novelty. 55 But it has been held that one all costs and who could have set up the mat- 50. Russell, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mallory, 21 ters on which the suit is based as a defense Fed. Gas. No. 12,166, 10 Blatchf. 140, 5 *Fish. in a suit against them by the patentee, it Pat. Cas. 632, 2 Off. Gaz. 495. must be dismissed. U. S. v. Frazer, 22 Fed. 51. Marsh v. Harris Mfg. Co., 63 Wis. 276, 106. 22 N. W. 516; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. . 40. U. S. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co., 22 Fed. U. S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. ed. 450 {.reversing 712; Evory v. Candee, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,583, 32 Fed. 591]. 4 Ban. & A. 545, 17 Blatchf. 200; Magic 41. U. S. v. Colgate, 32 Fed. 624. Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 42. U. S. v. Colgate, 21 Fed. 318. 8,949, 2 Ban. & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 151, 8 Off. 43. U. S. v. Gunning, 18 Fed. 511, 21 Gaz. 773; Waterbury Brass Co. v. New York, Blatchf. 516. etc., Brass Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,256. 44. U. S. V. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 52. Hall Mfg. Co. v. American R. Supply U. S. 224, 17 S. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 144 [affirm- Co., 48 Mich. 331, 12 N. W. 205; Brooks v. ing 68 Fed. 542, 15 C. C. A. 569] ; Mowry v. Moorhouse, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,956, 3 Ban. & A. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 229, 13 Off. Gaz. 499; Magic Ruffle Co. v. 858; U. S. i;. Gunning, 18 Fed. 511,21 Blatchf. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,949, 2 Ban. 516; Delano v. Scott, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,753, & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 151, 8 Off. Gaz. 773. Gilp. 489, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 700; Stearns v. 53. Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. Barrett, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,337, 1 Mason 16,855. See also White v. S. Harris, etc., 153, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 97. Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 161. 45. Greenwood v. Bracher, 1 Fed. 856. 54. Mannie v. Everett, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 46. Holliday v. Pickhardt, 29 Fed. 853. 9,039. 47. Hea ton-Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. 55. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U. S. v. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. 592. 587, 12 S. Ct. 598, 36 L. ed. 272; Simmond v. 48. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Buckeye Morrison, 44 Fed. 757; Kirk v. Du Bois, 33 Electric Co., 64 Fed. 225. Fed. 252 [affirmed in 158 U. S. 58, 15 S. Ct. 49. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Buckeye 729, 39 L. ed. 895] ; La Rue v. Western Elec- Electric Co., 64 Fed. 225. trie Co., 31 Fed. 80, 24 Blatchf. 392 [affirmed [VI, E] PATENTS [30 Cye.] 913 making use of another's patent mark is estopped to deny the validity of the patent. 56 3. ESTOPPEL OF ASSIGNOR. One who assigns a patent cannot dispute its validity as against his assignee. 57 As to the rest of the world the patent may be void but the assignor is estopped from urging that defense against his assignee. 58 The assignor is not estopped, however, to deny infringement or to show that the patent is limited in its scope. 59 in 139 U. S. 601, 11 S. Ct. 670, 35 L. ed. 294]; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Gas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Gas. 120; Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Gas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Gas. 303, 4 Wash. 9; Vance v. Campbell, 28 Fed. Gas. No. 16,836; Vance v. Campbell, 28 Fed. Gas. No. 16,837, 1 Fish. Pat. Gas. 483; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17,594, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 207 [re- versed on other grounds in 14 Wall. 620, 20 L. ed. 860]. 56. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17,217, 4 Ban. & A. 571, 9 Biss. 141, 18 Off. Gaz. 465. 57. Mathews Gravity Carrier Co. v. Lister, 154 Fed. 490; Wold v. Thayer, 148 Fed. 227, 78 C. C. A. 350 [affirming 142 Fed. 776]; Frank v. Bernard, 131 Fed. 269 [affirmed in 135 Fed. 1021, 68 C. C. A. 566]; Force v. Sawyer-Boss Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 1018, 51 C. C. A. 592; Alvin Mfg. Co. v. Scharling, 100 Fed. 87; Martin, etc., Cash-Carrier Co. v. Martin, 67 Fed. 786, 14 C. C. A. 642; Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co., 60 Fed. 283, 8 C. C. A. 622 ; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Yale, etc., Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 563 ; Adee v. Thomas, 41 Fed. 342; American Paper Barrel Co. v. Lara way, 28 Fed. 141; Parker v. McKee, 24 Fed. 808 ; Underwood v. Warren, 21 Fed. 573; Curren v. Burdsall, 20 Fed. 835, 31 Fed. 918; Consolidated Middlings Purifier Co. V. Guilder, 9 Fed. 155, 3 McCrary 186; Bowman v. Taylor, 2 A. & E. 278, 4 L. J. K. B. 58, 4 N. & M. 264, 29 E, C. L. 142; Chambers v. Crichley, 33 Beav. 374, 55 Eng. Reprint 412; Walton v. Lavater, 8 C. B. N. S. 162, 6 Jur. N. S. 1251, 29 L. J. C. P. 275, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 272, 98 E. C. L. 162; Smith t7. Scott, 6 C. B. N. S. 771, 5 Jur. N. S. 1356, 28 L. J. C. P. 325, 95 E. C. L. 771 ; Heugh v. Chamberlain, 25 Wkly. Rep. 742; Clark v. Adie, 21 Wkly. Rep. 456 [affirmed in 21 Wkly. Rep. 764]. Estoppel to deny title of licensee. The owner of a patent who grants an exclusive license thereunder is estopped to deny that the licensee took good title to the privilege which he undertook to convey. Seal v. Beach, 113 Fed. 831. The foundation of the estoppel against a vendor patentee is the fact that he has re- ceived and retained a valuable thing in con- sideration of the statements contained in the application for, or specification of, the pat- ent. Therefore, when an assignment is made pending the application for a patent, it is immaterial whether or not the vendor may have made representations to the purchasers concerning the probability of obtaining a pat- ent. Nor is it material "that the purchasers knew that the thing sought to be patented [58] was old, when they understood that the pat- ent was sought for a new application and use of it. National Conduit Mfg. Co. v. Con- necticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. 491. Infringement of another patent. The pat- entee is estopped to deny the validity of the patent on the ground that it infringes another patent owned by him. Essex Button Co. v. Paul, 48 Fed. 310; Adee v. Thomas, 41 Fed. 346; Curran v. Burdsall, 20 Fed. 835. A patentee whose wife has sold the patent to another is estopped to deny the validity of the patent. Onderdonk v. Fanning, 4 Fed. 148. Corporations. The rule applies to corpo- rations as well as to natural persons. Marvel Co. r. Pearl, 114 Fed. 946; Force v. Sawyer- Boss Mfg. Co., Ill Fed. 902 [.affirmed in 113 Fed. 1018, 51 C. C. A. 592] ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Buckej^e Electric Co., 64 Fed. 225. The estoppel against the assignor of a patent operates against a corporation subse- quently formed by him, and which is en- tirely owned and controlled by him. The cor- poration will be estopped, even if another party has a substantial interest therein, where it appears that at the time of acquir- ing his interest he had known of the patent and its assignment and had been associated with the assignor in the line of business to which the patent relates. National Conduit Mfg. Co. v. Connecticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. 491. The mere fact, however, that an inventor, who has assigned his patent, sub- sequently becomes an officer in a corporation which is alleged to be an infringer does not render applicable to such corporation the estoppel which operates against him person- ally. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Yale, etc., Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. 563. Mortgage trustee is estopped. Regina Music Box Co. v. Newell, 131 Fed. 606. Licensor estopped. National Heeling-Mach. Co. v. Abbott, 77 Fed. 462. As to patent not sued on there is no estop- pel. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 69 Fed. 371, 16 C. C. A. 259. 58. Alvin Mfg. Co. v. Scharling, 100 Fed. 87; Adee v. Thomas, 41 Fed. 346. 59. Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co., 99 Fed. 90, 39 C. C. A. 426; Martin, etc., . Cash-Carrier Co. v. Martin, 67 Fed. 786, 14 C. C. A. 642; Western Tel. Constr. Co. v. Stromberg, 66 Fed. 550; Babcock v. Clarkson, 63 Fed. 607, 11 C. C. A. 351; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Ball Glove Fastening Co., 58 Fed. 818, 7 C. C. A. 498. A limitation on this doctrine, however, is that he cannot insist on a construction that would render the patent valueless. Hurwood Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 138 Fed. 835. [VI, F, 3] 914 [80 Cye.] PATENTS 4. ESTOPPEL OF ASSIGNEE, GRANTEE, OR LICENSEE. A licensee or grantee cannot dispute the validity of the patent unless it has been pronounced invalid by a court of last resort. 60 An assignee or licensee cannot dispute the validity of the patent for the purpose of avoiding carrying out the conditions of sale or license. 61 A mere offer to take a license will not operate as an estoppel, 62 and there is no estop> pel where an implied license is alleged. 63 A corporation is not estopped by a personal license to a stock-holder. 64 In the absence of any specific agreement not to contest the validity of the patent, the estoppel of a lessee or licensee is confined to the particular article covered by the lease or license ; C5 but a party may bind himself generally not to dispute the validity of the patents embodied in those articles. 66 5. EXPIRED LICENSE. The fact that a party once operated under a license will not estop him from disputing the validity of the patent, unless there was some agreement by him to that effect. 67 60. Hyatt t?. Dale Tile Mfg. Co., 106 N. Y. 651, 12 N. E. 705 [affirmed in 125 U. S. 46, 8 S. Ct. 756, 31 L. ed. 683] ; Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 206, 23 Am. Rep. 43, 82 N. Y. 526; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 375; Hardwick v. Galbraith, 147 Pa. St. 333, 23 Atl. 451; Harvey Steel Co. v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 662; Clark v. A die, 2 App. Cas. 423, 46 L. J. Ch. 598, 37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 26 Wkly. Rep. 45; Hills 1?. Laming, 9 Exch. 256, 23 L. J. Exch. 60; Crossley v. Dixon, 10 H. L. Cas. 293, 9 Jur. N. S. 607, 32 L. J. Ch. 617, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 260, 11 Wkly. Rep. 716, 11 Eng. Reprint 1039; Beam v. Merner, 14 Ont. 412; Whiting v. Tuttle, 17 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 454; Gray v. Billington, 21 U. C. C. P. 288. Where the patent has been pronounced void, there is no estoppel. Hawkes v. Swett, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 146; Ross v. Fuller, etc., Co., 105 Fed. 510. The licensee may dispute construction given to patent by licensor. Trotman v. Wood, 16 C. B. N. S. 479, 111 E. C. L. 479. 61. Illinois. Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Charter Gas Engine Co. v. Charter, 47 111. App. 36. Contra, Pratt v. Paris Gas Light, etc., Co., 51 111. App. 603. Maine. Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 93, 24 Am. Rep. 10. Minnesota. Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917, 59 Am. Rep. 321. New Hampshire. Clark t;. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 612. New York. Saltus v. Belford Co., 133 N. Y. 499, 31 N. E. 518; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285; Hyatt v. Dale Tile Mfg. Co., 106 N. Y. 651, 12 N. E. 705; Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 206, 23 Am. Rep. 43; General Electric Co. V. Nassau Electric R. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 510, 55 N. Y. Suppl. 858; Skidmore v. Fahys Watch-Case Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 9-4, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 1016; Denise v. Swett, 68 Hun. 188, 22 N. Y. Suppl. 950; Marsh v. Dodge, 4 Hun 278; Bay- lis v. Bullock Electric Mfg. Co., 32 Misc. 218, 66 N. Y. Suppl. 253 [reversed on other grounds in 59 N. Y. App. Div. 576, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 693] ; Kaffeman v. Stern, 23 Misc. 599, 53 N. Y. Suppl. 260; Montgomery v. Water- bury, 2 Misc. 145, 21 N. Y. Suppl. 637 [af- firmed in 142 N. Y. 652, 37 N. E. 569] ; Smith [VI, F, 4] v. Standard Laundry Mach. Co., 11 Daly 154; Brusie v. Peck, 16 N. Y. Suppl. 648. Ohio. Ely v. Topliff, 41 Ohio St. 357; Clark v. Bentel, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 289, 12 Cine. L. Bui. 53. Pennsylvania. Jarecki v. Hays, 161 Pa. St. 613, 29 Atl. 118; Hubbard v. Allen, 123 Pa. St. 198, 16 Atl. 772; Patterson's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 521; Hardwick v. Caves, 1 Pa. Dist. 137. United States. U. S. v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, 25 S. Ct. 240, 49 L. ed. 492; Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289, 15 L. ed. 385; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Gaunt, 134 Fed. 239; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co., 116 Fed. 629; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 108 Fed. 870, 48 C. C. A. 116 [affirming 107 Fed. 134] ; Moore v. National Water-Tube Boiler Co., 84 Fed. 346; Godell v. Wells, etc., Co., 70 Fed. 319-; Platt v. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 897, 8 C. C. A. 357; National Rubber Co. v. Boston Rubber-Shoe Co., 41 Fed. 48; Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525 ; Birdsall v. Perego, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,435, 5 Blatchf. 251; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Wilder v. Adams, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,647, 2 Woodb. & M. 329. Contra, Baltimore Car-Wheel Co. v. North Baltimore Pass. R. Co., 21 Fed. 47; Pelham v. Edelmeyer, 15 Fed. 262, 21 Blatchf. 188; National Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. 355; Mitchell v. Barclay, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,659; Morse Arms Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 16 Ct. Cl. 296. Contra. Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 162. 62. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68. 63. Harvey Steel Co. v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 662. 64. Newark Spring-Mattress Co. v. Ryan, 102 Fed. 693, 42 C. C. A. 594. 65. Dunham v. Bent, 72 Fed. 60. 66. Dunham v. Bent, 72 Fed. 60. 67. Stimpson Computing Scale Co. t>. W. F. Stimpson Co., 104 Fed. 893, 44 C. C. A. 241; Dueber Watch-Case Mfg. Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17, 21 C. C. A. 198 [reversing 71 Fed. 186] ; Mudgett v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 645; Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Heineken, 37 Fed. 686; Blatherwick v. Carey, 9 Fed. 202, 10 Biss. 494; Burr v. Duryee", 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,190, PATENTS [30 Cye.] 915 VII. TERM. 68 A. In General 1. MECHANICAL PATENTS. All mechanical patents granted in the United States upon applications tiled after December 31, 1897, have a term of seventeen years from the date of the grant. 69 The term of seventeen years was fixed by the act of 1871 ; 70 but between that date and the time the act of March 3, 1897, went into effect, patents were limited to expire with foreign pat- ents upon the invention. Under section 8, the act of 1897 applied only to patents granted on applications filed after December 31, 1897. 70a 2. DESIGNS. The term of a design patent is three and one-half, seven, or four- teen years, as elected in the application for patent. 71 3. REISSUES. A reissued patent is operative only for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. 72 4. LIMITATION BY FOREIGN PATENT a. In General. Patents granted upon appli- cations filed before January 1, 1898, are by statute limited to expire at the same time as any foreign patent previously procured by or for the United States pat- entee having the shortest term to run. 73 The question of secrecy or publicity in the 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 275 [affirmed in 1 Wall. 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661]; Wooster v. Singer Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,039a, 15 Reporter 524, 23 Off. Gaz. 2513; Gouchr v. Clayton, 11 Jur. N. S. 107, 34 L. J. Ch. 239, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 732, 13 Wkly. Rep. 336; Dangerfield v. Jones, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 142. 68. Term of reissued patent see infra, VIII, A, 4. 69. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4884 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3381]; Guarantee Ins. Trust, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153. In England the term is fourteen years from date, but fees must be paid at stated times to keep it in force. Act (1883), 17. In Canada the term is eighteen years, but the fee may be paid for only six years, or twelve if so elected. St. 55 & 56 Viet. c. 24, 5. 70. 12 U. S. St. at L. 249. 70a. United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 155 Fed. 842, 84 C. C. A. 76. 71. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4931 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) 3399']. 72. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]. 73. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4887, prior to the amendment of March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 692 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382] ; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 155 Fed. 842, 84 C. C. A. 76; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 15 S. Ct. 508, 39 L. ed. 601; Commercial Mfg. Co. v. Fairbank Canning Co., 135 U. S. 176, 10 St. C. 718, 34 L. ed. 88; Pohl v. Anchor Brewing Co., 134 U. S. 381, 10 S. Ct. 577, 33 L. ed. 953; Bate Refriger- ating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, 9 S. Ct. 225, 32 L. ed. 645 ; Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863 ; Guarantee Ins. Trust, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 148 Fed. 31 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682; De Florez v. Reynolds, 8 Fed. 434, 17 Blatchf. 436; Nathan v. New York El. R. Co., 2 Fed. 225; Weston f. White, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,458, 2 Ban. & A. 321, 13 Blatchf. 364, 9 Off. Gaz. 1196. Assignment of right to patent. The fact that an applicant for a patent assigned his right thereto to another before applying for and obtaining a foreign patent for the in- vention which was issued before the one in this country will not prevent the latter from being limited to the term of the foreign patent. John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 115 Fed. 526. The statute is not retroactive and does not apply to American patents granted before the law took effect or to the reissues of such patents granted after the law took effect. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik u. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. No. 721, 3 Ban. & A. 235, 13 Off. Gaz. 273; Goff v. Stafford, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,504, 3 Ban. & A. 610, 14 Off. Gaz. 748. "Term." The word "term/' which when used in reference to a foreign patent, when more than one such patent exists, indicates what was meant as the time of duration. Paillard v. Br,uno, 29 Fed. 864, 865. In England the patent expires with any foreign patent granted before the English patent. In re Winan, L. R. 4 P. C. 93, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 306, 17 Eng. Reprint 327; In re Betts Patent, 9 Jur. N. S. 137, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 577, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 49, 1 New Rep. 137, 11 Wkly. Rep. 221, 15 Eng. Reprint 621; In re Bodmer, 8 Moore P. C. 282, 14 Eng. Reprint 108. In Canada the patent expires with any foreign patent in existence during the life of the Canadian patent. Dominion Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ontario Gen. Engineering Co., [1902] A. C. 570, 71 L. J. P. C. 119, 87 L. T. Rep. N. S. 186; Auer Incandescent Light Mfg. Co. v. Dreschel, 6 Can. Exch. 55 [VII, A, 4, a] 916 [30 Cye.] PATENTS foreign patent does not prevent the limitation.' 4 To act as a limitation, however, the foreign patent must be procured by the United States patentee or by his consent or be ratified by him. 75 It would be manifestly unjust that a patentee should lose the full fruits of his patent by the fact that some intermeddler had caused the inven- tion to be patented abroad. 76 A provisional patent issued in a foreign country which merely secures the applicant against the effects of publication for three years and entitles him to a definitive patent on making the required proofs of the existence of either the article itself or a model thereof within that time is not such a patent as is referred to in the statute, 77 and a foreign patent void ab initio will not limit or invalidate the United States patent. 78 The rule is otherwise, however, as to a patent issued by virtue of the recognized lawful authority vested in the king of a foreign country, although there was no patent law in the shape of a legislative enactment. 79 Failure to limit the patent on its face so as to expire at the same time with the prior foreign patent having the shortest time does not affect its validity. 80 Although the patentee procures the " correction " of a patent limiting it to expire with a foreign patent, which attempted " correction " is void for want of jurisdiction of the commissioner to make it, he is not estopped to claim that the patent was in force for the full term of its life as originally fixed. 81 b. Identity of Invention. It is not necessary that the patents be identical in all particulars, or that the inventions disclosed therein be identical, since it is sufficient if upon examination of the two instruments it appears that substantially the same thing is intended to be covered thereby. 82 A difference in mere detail does not avoid identity, 83 unless such difference affects the essence of the inven- tion in a patentable sense. 84 And a foreign patent and a subsequent American patent are not for different inventions because the latter contains a more genuine claim, which covers the specific form of device described in the former, and other [affirmed in 28 Can. Sup. Ct. 608] ; Barter v. Howland, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 135. 74. Gramme Electrical Co. v. Arnoux, etc., Electrical Co., 17 Fed. 838, 21 Blatchf. 450. Act March 3, 1903 (32 U. S. St. at L. 1225 [U. S. Comp. St. Suppl. (1905) p. 663]) is not retroactive to revive an expired patent. Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Carpenter, 133 Fed. 238 [affirmed in 143 Fed. 976, 75 C. C. A. 162]. 75. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 363, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586 [affirming 92 Fed. 146, 34 C. C. A. 248] ; United Shoe Mach., etc., Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 155 Fed. 842, 84 C. C. A. 76; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Car- penter, 133 Fed. 238 [affirmed in 143 Fed. 976, 75 C. C. A. 162] ; Willcox, etc., Sewing Mach. Co. v. Industrial Mfg. Co., 110 Fed. 210 [reversed on other grounds in 112 Fed. 535, 50 C. C. A. 387]; Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 916; Edison Electric Ligh't Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 35 Fed. 134; Kendrick v. Emmons, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,695, 2 Ban. & A. 208, 9 Off. Gaz. 201. 76. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586. 77. SocigtS Anonyme, etc. v. General Elec- tric Co., 97 Fed. 604. 78. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 20 79. Atlas Glass Co. v. Simonds Mfg. Co., 102 Fed. 643, 42 C. C. A. 554 [affirming 102 Fed. 338]. 80. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, 9 S. Ct. 225, 32 L. ed. 645; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 [VII, A, 4, a] L. ed. 601 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83; American Paper Barrel Co. v. Laraway, 28 Fed. 141; Canan v. Pound Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. 185, 23 Blatchf. 173. Contra, Smith v. Ely, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,043, 5 McLean 76, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 339. 81. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Blooming- dale, 65 Fed. 212; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83. 82. Commercial Mfg. Co. v. Fairbank Can- ning Co., 135 U. S. 176, 10 S. Ct. 718, 34 L. ed. 88; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Ham- mond, 129 U. S. 151, 9 S. Ct. 225, 32 L. ed. 645; Guarantee Ins. Trust, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153; Plummer v. Sargent, 120 U. S. 442, 7 S. Ct. 640, 30 L. ed. 737; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 148 Fed. 31; Aquarama Co. v. Old Mill Co., 124 Fed. 229; Atlas Glass Co. v. Simonds Mfg. Co., 102 Fed. 338 [affirmed in 102 Fed. 643, 42 C. C. A. 554]; J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Henry Mc- Shane Mfg. Co., 80 Fed. 516; Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 57 Fed. 605 ; Clark v. Wilson, 28 Fed. 95; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Accumulator Co., 56 Off. Gaz. 1334 [affirmed in 61 Off. Gaz. 886]. Patent is limited, although one is for proc- ess and the other for product. Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 57 Fed. 605. 83. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Mc- Lean, 153 Fed. 883, 82 C. C. A. 629. 84. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Mc- Lean, 153 Fed. 883, 82 C. C. A. 629. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 917 forms as well. 85 But a prior patent in a foreign country for a minor part of a broad or basic invention is not for the same invention as a subsequent United States patent covering both the minor parts and the broad main invention. 86 When American letters patent are issued covering the same invention described in foreign letters patent of an earlier date, the life of the American patent is not prolonged by the fact that it also covers improvements upon the invention as patented in a foreign country. 87 It is necessary that the foreign patent claim the same invention ; it is not sufficient that it disclose the invention of the later United States patent, where it is not claimed therein. 88 e. Date of Foreign Patent. To limit a United States patent the foreign patent must have been actually sealed and issued before the date of the United States patent, and the antedating of a foreign patent will not make it limit a patent here which was actually granted first. 8 ^ l)ates of actual issue and not the dates of application control. 90 d. Term of Foreign Patent. The term of a foreign patent is the time which the patentee may as a matter of right keep it in force under the law of the country. 91 It includes not merely the term mentioned in the grant, but any extension thereof which may be procured at the option of the patentee, and it is immaterial whether or not such extension is actually procured. 92 The judgment of the courts of the foreign country as to the meaning of its laws and the term of the patents is controlling. 93 e. Lapse or Expiration of Foreign Patent. Where, at the time that the United States patent is granted, a foreign patent is in force, granted for a certain term, and that patent subsequently lapses through failure to pay fees or taxes or for similar cause, the United States patent does not lapse with the foreign patent, 85. Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Carpenter, 133 Fed. 238 [affirmed in 143 Fed. 976, 75 C. C. A. 162]. And see Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 57 Fed. 605. 86. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds, etc., Co., 146 Fed. 534 [affirmed without opinion in 148 Fed. 1022, 79 C. C. A. 536]. 87. Guarantee Ins. Trust, etc., Co. v. Sel- lers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153. 88. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co., 138 Fed. 823, 71 C. C. A. 189; Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Co., 22 Fed. 341. Contra, Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co., 138 Fed. 823, 71 C. C. A. 189; Western Electric Co. v. Citi- zens' Tel. Co., 106 Fed. 215. 89. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 15 S. Ct. 508, 39 L. ed. 601; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 9-7 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Waring Electric Co., 59 Fed. 358 [affirmed in 69 Fed. 645, 15 C. C. A. 700]; American Bell Tel. Co. i?. Cushman, 57 Fed. 842; Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. v. Domestic Tel., etc., Co., 42 Fed. 220; Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup Co. v. William Powell Co., 35 Fed. 591; Emerson v. Lippert, 31 Fed. 911; Gold, etc., Tel. Co. v. Com- mercial Tel. Co., 23 Fed. 340, 23 Blatchf. 199. In Canada the foreign patent must be in existence when the Canadian patent is granted. Ontario Gen. Engineering Co. v. Do- minion Cotton Mills Co., 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 75; Auer Incandescent Light Mfg. Co. v. Dreschel, 6 Can. Exch. 55 [affirmed in 28 Can. Sup. Ct. 608]. 90. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 15 S. Ct. 508, 39 L. ed. 601; Accumulator Co. v. Julien Co., 57 Fed. 605; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 35 Fed. 134 ; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 13 Fed. 553, 31 Fed. 809. 91. Pohl v. Anchor Brewing Co., 134 U. S. 381, 10 S. Ct. 577, 33 L. ed. 953; Bate Re- frigerating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, 9 S. Ct. 225, 32 L. ed. 645; Atlas Glass Co. v. Simonds Mfg. Co., 102 Fed. 338 [affirmed in 102 Fed. 643, 42 C. C. A. 554]; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. Smith, 70 Fed. 383 ; Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. Walker, 43 Fed. 575 [af- firmed in 138 U. S. 124, 11 S. Ct. 292, 34 L. ed. 920]. See also Edison Electric Light Co. v. Perkins Electric Lamp Co., 42 Fed. 327. 92. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, 9 S. Ct. 225, 32 L. ed. 645; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83. Contra, Gramme Electrical Co. v. Arnoux, etc., Electric Co., 17 Fed. 838, 21 Blatchf. 450; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 13 Fed. 553; Henry v. Providence Tool Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,384, 3 Ban. & A. 501; Reiss- ner v. Sharp, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,689, 4 Ban. & A. 366, 16 Blatchf. 383. Extension under subsequent law will not avoid. Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 57 Fed. 605. 93. Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. Walker, 43 Fed. 575 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 124, 11 S. Ct. 292, 34 L. ed. 920]. [VII, A, 4, e] 918 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS but extends throughout the original term of the foreign patent. 94 The life of a United States patent must be certain from the day of the grant. 95 Where the foreign patent'expired or lapsed for any cause before the grant of the United States patent, the United States patent is void. 96 B. Extensions. 97 There is no general act of congress permitting the exten- sion of patents, and therefore patents can now be extended only by special acts of congress. 98 Congress, however, as is shown by a very considerable number of 94. Pohl v. Anchor Brewing Co., 134 U. S. 381, 10 S. Ct. 577, 33 L. ed. 593; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds, etc., Co., 146 Fed. 534 [affirmed without opinion in 148 Fed. 1022, 79- C. C. A. 536] j Welsbach Light Co. v. Apollo Incandescent Gaslight Co., 96 Fed. 332, 37 C. C. A. 508; Diamond Match Co. v. Adirondack Match Co., 65 Fed. 803; Pohl v. Heyman, 58 Fed. 568; Paillard v. Bruno, 29 Fed. 864; Holmes Electric Pro- tective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., 21 Fed. 458. 95. Huber v. N. 0. Nelson Mfg. Co., 148 U. S. 270, 13 S. Ct. 603, 37 L. ed. 447; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 40 Off. Gaz. 1029; Paillard v. Bruno, 38 Off. Gaz. 900; Henry v. Providence Tool Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 855. Where foreign patent lapsed after the application in the United States, the United States patent is valid. Welsbach Light Co. v. Apollo Incandescent Gaslight Co., 96 Fed. 332, 37 C. C. A. 508. 96. Huber v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., 148 U. S. 270, 13 S. Ct. 603, 37 L. ed. 447. 97. Extension of reissued patent see infra, VIII, F. 98. Act 1861 (12 U. S. St. at L. 249) pro- hibited extensions. Guarantee Ins. Trust, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 L. ed. 153. Extension by treaty. The term of a pat- ent granted by the United States to a citizen thereof cannot be extended by a treaty. United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Mach. Co., 148 Fed. 31 [affirmed in 155 Fed. 842, 84 C. C. A. 76]. In England the crown may extend patents (In re Parsons, [1898] A. C. 673, 67 L. J. P. C. 55; Matter of Brandon, 9 App. Cas. 589, 53 L. J. P. C. 84; In re Betts, 9 Jur. N. S. 137, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 577, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 49, 1 New Rep. 137, 11 Wkly. Rep. 221, 15 Eng. Reprint 621; Ledsam v. Russell, 1 H. L. Cas. 687, 9 Eng. Reprint 931); and may extend the time even after expira- tion hearing on petition prior thereto (Led- sam v. Russell, 1 H. L. Cas. 687, 9 Eng. Reprint 931; Re Bodmer, 2 Moore P. C. 471, 12 Eng. Reprint 1085). The assignees may secure extension (Russell v. Ledsam, 9 Jur. 557, 14 L. J. Exch. 353, 14 M. & W. 574 [affirmed in 16 L. J. Exch. 145, 16 M. & W. 633 (affirmed in 1 H. L. Cas. 687, 9 Eng. Reprint 931) ] ; In re Napier, 13 Moore, P .C. 543, 9 Wkly. Rep. 390, 15 Eng. Reprint 204), but their claims are not viewed so favorably (In re Hopkinson, [1897] A. C. 249, 66 L. J. P. C. 38, 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 462; In re Normand, L. R. 3 P. C. 193, 6 Moore P. C. N. S. 477, 17 Eng. Reprint 805; In re Norton, 9 Jur. N. S. 419, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 339, [VII, A, 4, e] 1 New Rep. 557, 11 Wkly. Rep. 720, 15 Eng. Reprint 729). An importer from abroad may secure extension, but is not looked upon favorably. In re Johnson's Patent, L. R. 4 P. C. 75, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 282, 17 Eng. Reprint 318; In re Newton, 14 Moore P. C. 156, 10 Wkly. Rep. 731, 15 Eng. Reprint 265; In re Claridge, 7 Moore P. C. 394, 13 Eng. Reprint 932. An extension will be re- fused where clearly invalid. In re Blake, L. R. 4 P. C. 535, 9 Moore P. C. N. S. 373, 17 Eng. Reprint 554; Re Hill, 9 Jur. N. S. 1209, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 101, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 258, 12 Wkly. Rep. 25, 15 Eng. Reprint 698; In re Bett, 9 Jur. N. S. 137, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 877, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 49, 1 New Rep. 137, 11 Wkly. Rep. 221, 15 Eng. Reprint 621. An extension may be granted on conditions. In re Mallet, L. R. 1 P. C. 308; Ledsam v. Russell, 1 H. L. Cas. 687, 9 Eng. Reprint 931; In re Bodmer, 8 Moore P. C. 282, 14 Eng. Reprint 108; Bax- ter's Patent, 13 Jur. 593. Invention must have merit and public utility and the pat- entee must have been sufficiently remunerated. In re McDougal, L. R. 2 P. C. 1, 37 L. J. P. C. 17, 5 Moore P. C. N. S. 1, 16 Eng. Reprint 415; In re Pinkus, 12 Jur. 233; In re Bell, 10 Jur. 363; In re Heath, 8 Moore P. C. 217, 14 Eng. Reprint 83; In re Smith, 7 Moore P. C. 133, 13 Eng. Reprint 830; Re Russell, 2 Moore P. C. 496, 12 Eng. Re- print 1095. Petition for extension must state everything fully and fairly and must include complete account of profits. In re Wuterich, [1903] A. C. 206, 72 L. J. P. C. 60, 88 L. T. Rep. N. S. 306; In re Peach, [1902] A. C. 414, 71 L. J. P. C. 98, 87 L. T. Rep. N. S. 153; In re Johnson, L. R. 5 P. C. 87; In re Wield, L. R. 4 P. C. 89, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 300, 17 Eng. Reprint 325; In re Pitman, L. R. 4 P. C. 84, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 293, 17 Eng. Reprint 322; In re Clark, L. R. 3 P. C. 421, 7 Moore P. C. N. S. 255, 17 Eng. Reprint 97; In re Bett, 9 Jur. N. S. 137, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 577, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 49, 1 New Rep. 137, 11 Wkly. Rep. 221, 15 Eng. Reprint 621; In re Markwick, 13 Moore P. C. 310, 8 Wkly. Rep. 333, 15 Eng. Reprint 116. Expenses, etc., must be deducted in estimating profits (In re Carr, L. R. 4 P. C. 539, 9 Moore P. C. N. S. 379, 17 Eng. Reprint 556; In re Poole, L. R. 1 P. C. 514; Matter of Galloway, 7 Jur. 453; In re Newton, 14 Moore P. C. 156, 10 Wkly. Rep. 731, 15 Eng. Reprint 265) ; and failure of profits must be shown not to be due to failure to make proper efforts (In re Thorny- croft, [1899] A. C. 415, 68 L. J. P. C. 68; In re Patterson, 13 Jur. 593, 6 Moore P. C. 469, 13 Eng. Reprint 765; In re Norton, 9 Jur. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 919 decisions, has authority to extend the term of patents either by general law or special act." VIII. REISSUES. 1 A. In General 1. DEFINITION. A reissued patent is in effect an amendment of the original patent made to cure some defect or insufficiency in the original ; 2 a patent which merely secures the patent rights more definitely in some particular wherein the original patent was defective. 3 2. POWER TO REISSUE AND GROUNDS. The statutes of the United States author- ize a reissue of a patent where the original is inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee's claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he has a right to claim as new, provided the error arose by inadvertence, accident, or mistake and without any fraudulent or deceptive intent. 4 The statute is mandatory and gives the commissioner no dis- N. S. 419, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 339, 1 New Rep. 557, 11 Wkly. Rep. 720, 15 Eng. Reprint 729'). An extension will be refused where not suffi- ciently useful (In re Allan, L. R. 1 P. C. 507; In re Herbert, L. R. 1 P. C. 39-9; Matter of Simister, 7 Jur. 451, 4 Moore P. C. 164, 13 Eng. Reprint 264), and time of filing pe- tition for extension must be considered (In re Marshall, [1891] A. C. 430; In re Jabloch- koff, [1891] A. C. 293, 60 L. J. P. C. 61, 65 L. T. Rep. N. S. 5; Matter of Brandon, 9 App. Cas. 589, 53 L. J. P. C. 84; In re Hutchison, 14 Moore P. C. 364, 15 Eng. Re- print 343 ) . Any one filing caveat may oppose extension (In re Schlumberger, 2 Eq. Rep. 36, 9 Moore P. C. 1, 14 Eng. Reprint 197; In re Lowe, 8 Moore P. C. 1, 14 Eng. Re- print 1 1 In re Smith, 7 Moore P. C. 133, 13 Eng. Reprint 830; Re Woodcroft, 3 Moore P. C. 171, 13 Eng. Reprint 72), and an ob- jection to extension should state grounds but not necessarily particulars (In re Ball, 4 App. Cas. 171, 48 L. J. P. C. 24, 27 Wkly. Rep. 477 ) . Costs are allowed on opposition to extension. In re Wield, L. R. 4 P. C. 89, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 300, 17 Eng. Reprint 325; In re Johnson, L. R. 4 P. C. 75, 8 Moore P. C. N. S. 282, 17 Eng. Reprint 318; In re Jones, 9 Moore P. C. 41, 14 Eng. Reprint, 213; In re Milner, 9 Moore P. C. 39, 14 Eng. Reprint 212. 99. Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; New American File Co. v. Nicholson File Co., 8 Fed. 816; Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,518, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 734, 742, 2 Story 164, 3 Sumn. 535; Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 258, Fish. Pat. Rep. 184; Bloomer v. Stolley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,559, Fish. Pat. Rep. 376, 5 McLean 158; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Evans v. Robinson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,571, Brunn. Col. Cas. 400; Gibson v. Gifford, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,395, 1 Blatchf. 529, Fish. Pat. Rep. 366; Gibson v. Harris, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,396, 1 Blatchf. 167, Fish. Pat. Rep. 115; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Potter . Braunsdorf, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,321, 7 Blatchf. 9-7; Washburn v. Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206, 3 Story 122; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248; Woodworth v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,019, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 257, 3 Story 171. 1. Correction or amendment of original pat- ent see supra, VI, C. Extension of original patent see supra, VII, B. 2. Lattig v. Dean, 25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 591; McBurney v. Goodyear, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 569; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258, 11 S. Ct. 71, 34 L. ed. 652; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Shaw v. Colwell Lead Co., 11 Fed. 711, 20 Blatchf. 417; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. Either the specification or claim may be amended. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37; Hart, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Electric Co., 92 Fed. 657, 34 C. C. A. 606. 3. Ingersoll v. Holt, 104 Fed. 682. 4. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]; Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Frame, 24 Fed. 596; Gold, etc., Tel. Co. v. Wiley, 17 Fed. 234; Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 16 Fed. 240, 21 Blatchf. 271; Woven-Wire Mattress Co. v. Wire-Web Bed Co., 8 Fed. 87; Smith v. Merriam, 6 Fed. 713; Wilson v. Coon, 6 Fed. 611, 18 Blatchf. 532; Giant Powder Co. v. California Vigorit Powder Co., 4 Fed. 720, 6 Sawy. 508; Atlantic Giant- Powder Co. v. Goodyear, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 623, 3 Ban. & A. 161, 13 Off. Gaz. 45; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Higgin, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 722, 3 Ban. & A. 462, 15 Blatchf. 290, 14 Off. Gaz. 414; Ex p. Ball, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 810; Dyson v. Gambrill, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,230; Knight v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505 ; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464; Wells v. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. Prior to the passage of the reissue statute the authority to grant a reissue existed. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376. [VIII, A, 2] 920 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS cretion as to cases within its provisions. 5 "While it is to be construed liberally according to its spirit, 6 a reissue cannot be granted except as provided therein. 7 To warrant a reissue it is necessary that there should be a bona fide mistake or accident and not merely an error in judgment, 8 and the patent must be inoperative and invalid. 9 Claims that are too narrow render the patent inoperative and justify a reissue. 10 So where the patent claims too much there may be a reissue. 11 The reissue is not invalid because the error corrected was immaterial. 12 3. PERSONS ENTITLED TO REISSUE. A reissue may be granted to the inventor, "his executor or administrator, or in case of assignment recorded in the patent office may be granted to the assignee. 13 Joint owners must all join in a surrender for reissue or ratify a reissue, otherwise it is invalid. 14 In regard to reissues citizens and aliens have the same rights. 15 In Canada the law is like that in the United States. St. 35 Viet. c. 26, 19. Defective or inoperative patent may be amended by reissue. Auer Incandescent Light Mfg. Co. v. O'Brien, 5 Can. Exch. 243; Hunter v. Carrick, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 489 [reversed on other grounds in 10 Ont. App. 449]. 5. Ex p. Dyson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,228. 6. Ex p. Ball, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 810. 7. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 58 Fed. 227, 7 C. C. A. 197; Child v. Adams, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,673, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 3 Wall. Jr. 20. 8. In re Conklin, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 375; Huber v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., 148 U. S. 270, 13 S. Ct. 603, 37 L. ed. 447 [af- firming 38 Fed. 8301 ; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 10 S. Ct. 884, 34 L. ed. 168; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. V. James, 125 U. S. 447, 8 S. Ct. 967, 31 L. ed. 807; Matthews v. Iron-Clad Mfg. Co., 124 U. S. 347, 8 S. Ct. 639-, 31 L. ed. 477; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268, 5 S. Ct. 537, 28 L. ed. 963; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665; Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. t>. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 115 Fed. 810; American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Swietusch, 85 Fed. 968, 29 C. C. A. 506 ; Jenkins v. Stetson, 32 Fed. 398; Arnheim v. Finster, 24 Fed. 276; American Diamond Drill Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 21 Fed. 74; Newton v. Furst, etc., Mfg. Co., 14 Fed. 465, 11 Biss. 405; Putnam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. 127, 11 Biss. 233; Whitehouse v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,566. Actual mistake shown see Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658 ; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 43 Fed. 922; National Spring Co. i?. Union Car Spring Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,051, 1 Ban. & A. 240, 12 Blatchf. 80, C Off. Gaz. 224; In re Briede, 123 Off. Gaz. 322. How shown. Mistake may be shown by evidence outside of official record. Ex p. Dyson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,228; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946, 5 Blatchf. 134, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362. 9. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661; Idealite Co. v. Pro- [VIII, A, 2] tection Light Co., 103 Fed. 973; Giant Powdsr Co. t?. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,379, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [re- versed on other grounds in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77] ; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566. 10. In re Briede, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298, 123 Off. Gaz. 322; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berk- shire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 10 S. Ct. 884, 34 L. ed. 168; Mahn i*. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665; Western Union Tel. Co. . Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 30; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. 509; Welling v. Rubber-Coated Harness Trimming Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,383, 2 Ban. & A. 1. 11. Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 656; Mathews v. Flower, 25 Fed. 830; Dorsey Harvester Re- volving-Rake Co. v. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; Knight v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Treadwell v. Bladen, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,154, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 531, 4 Wash. 703. 12. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Black River Traction Co., 135 Fed. 759, 68 C. C. A. 461; Buerk v. Valentine, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,109, 9- Blatchf. 479, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 366, 2 Off. Gaz. 295. 13. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895, 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 3393, 3385]; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co.. 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91; Potter u. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,329, 4 Blatchf. 206, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Smith v. Mercer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,078, 5 Pa. L. J. 529 ; Wing v. Warren, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,871, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 548, 2 Off. Gaz. 342. Assignee may secure reissue in his own name and for his own benefit without consent of inventor. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,398, Holmes 45 ; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. 14. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,810, 2 Cliff. 555, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87; Potter v. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,329, 4 Blatchf. 206, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Woodworth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,021, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 296, 3 Story 749. 15. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292, 8 L. ed. 689. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 921 4. TERM. The reissue is granted for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. 16 B. Time FOP Application 1. IN GENERAL. Application for reissue should be made with promptness, 17 and while the length of delay which is permissible depends on the circumstances of the particular case, 18 it has been said that where claims are broadened a delay of two years will ordinarily be regarded as too long unless excuse is shown therefor. 19 2. INTERVENING RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS. Where a reissue is sought merely to expand the claims of a patent, so as to embrace structures or devices brought into use since the issuance of the original, and which were not infringements of the claim of the original, there being no proof of mistake or inadvertence, the right to a reissue is lost by unreasonable delay, and the reissue, being made, is void. 20 16. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]; Gibson v. Harris, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,396, 1 Blatchf. 167, Fish. Pat. Eep. 115; Morris v. Huntington, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9-,831, 1 Paine 348, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 448 ; Woodworth v. Edwards, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,014, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 610, 3 Woodb. & M. 120. 17. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 10 S. Ct. 884, 34 L. ed. 168; Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 119 U. S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. ed. 539; Wollen- sak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96, 5 S. Ct. 1137, 29 L. ed. 350; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Sterling-Meaker Co., 150 Fed. 589; Milloy Electric Co. v. Thompson-Hous- ton Electric Co., 148 Fed. 843, 78 C. C. A. 533 ; Pelzer v. Meyberg, 97 Fed. 969 ; Shirley v. Mayer, 25 Fed. 38, 23 Blatchf. 249; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 30; Ives V. Sargent, 17 Fed. 447, 21 Blatchf. 417 ; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Marqua, 15 Fed. 400; Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. 597; Kidder v. Smart Mfg. Co., 8 Ont. 362. 18. Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 30; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159; Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. 843. For facts showing unreasonable delay see In re Starkey, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 519; In re Messinger, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 532; Eby v. King, 158 U. S. 366, 15 S. Ct. 972, 39 L. ed. 1018; Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 291, 38 L. ed. 137; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 13 S. Ct. 902, 37 L. ed. 737; Electric Gas-Lighting Co. v. Boston Electric Co., 139 U. S. 481, 11 S. Ct. 586, 35 L. ed. 250; Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 119- U. S. 664, 7 S. Ct. 421, 30 L. ed. 539; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 7 S. Ct. 72, 30 L. ed. 303; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158; Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 5 S. Ct. 788, 29 L. ed. 105; Torrent, etc., Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 112 U. S. 659, 5 S. Ct. 501, 28 L. ed. 842; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665; Johnson v. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 539, 26 L. ed. 1162; Bantz v. Frantz, 105 U. S. 160, 26 L. ed. 1013; Matthews v. Bos- ton Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54, 26 L. ed. 1022; Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783; United Blue-Flame Oil Stove Co. v. Glazier, 119 Fed. 157, 55 C. C. A. 553; Troy Laundry Mach. Co. v. Adams Laun- dry Mach. Co., 112 Fed. 437; Pfenninger v. Heubner, 99 Fed. 440; Horn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Pelzer, 91 Fed. 665, 34 C. C. A. 45; Mast v. Iowa Windmill, etc., Co., 76 Fed. 816, 22 C. C. A. 586; Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss, 39 Fed. 273; Wollensak v. Sargent, 33 Fed. 840; Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. South St. Louis Foundry Co., 29 Fed. 866; Curran v. St. Louis Refrigerator, etc., Co., 29 Fed. 320; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 656; Shirley v. Mayer, 25 Fed. 38, 23 Blatchf. 249; Tuttle v. Loomis, 24 Fed. 789; Scrivner v. Oakland Gas Co., 22 Fed. 98, 10 Sawy. 390; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Goodrich, 15 Fed. 455; Sheriff v. Fulton, 12 Fed. 136; Combined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, 11 Fed. 149. After a decision of a court of appeals declaring a patent void, the owner cannot continue litigation in other circuits and wait until the patent has again been declared void before applying for a re- issue. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. West- ern Electric Co., 158 Fed. 813. For facts showing reasonable diligence see In re Briede, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298, 123 Off. Gaz. 322; In re Heroult, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 42; Featherstone v. George R. Bid- well Cycle Co., 53 Fed. 113; Russell v. Laugh- lin, 26 Fed. 699; In re Briede, 123 Off. Gaz. 322. 19. In re Ams, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 91; In re Starkey, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 519-; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96, 5 S. Ct. 1137, 29 L. ed. 350; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. 684; Phillips v. Risser, 26 Fed. 308. Application to enlarge monopoly. Where the reissue was obtained, not for the purpose of correcting a mistake, but for the mere purpose of enlarging the monopoly of the patent, it is immaterial that the application for reissue was made within two years from the time of the original grant. Parker, etc., Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 8 S. Ct. 38, 31 L. ed. 100; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268, 5 S. Ct. 537, 28 L. ed. 963; Union Paper- Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury, 39 Fed. 389; Russell v. Laughlin, 26 Fed. 699. 20. Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U. S. 103, 14 S. Ct. 986, 38 L. ed. 924 [af- firming 40 Fed. 667]; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652, 7 S. Ct. 436, 30 L. ed. 544 ; Newton [VIII, B, 2] 922 [30 Cye.] PATENTS Even if the claim is technically narrowed instead of broadened, a reissue after long delay, during which adverse equities have arisen, cannot be sustained, when the original patent did not indicate, or even hint at, the invention of the reissue. 21 What is not claimed in an original patent is dedicated to the 'public unless the patent is surrendered and reissued within a reasonable time and before adverse rights have accrued. 28 It will not do for the patentee to wait until other inventors have produced new forms of improvement and then, with the new light thus acquired, under pretense of inadvertence and mistake, apply for suck an enlargement of his claim as to make it embrace these new forms. 23 Such a process of expansion carried on indefinitely, without regard to lapse of time, would operate most unjustly against the public and is totally unauthorized by the law. 24 No matter how* valuable and meritorious an invention may be, a patentee has no right, by reissuing his patent, to gradually widen the scope of his claims so as to keep pace with the progress of invention. 25 But a reissued patent is not void, because the things claimed in the original had been in public use in the interval between the original and the reissued patent. Such a publication is not an abandonment or dedication. 26 3. EXCUSES FOR DELAY. The applicant may excuse delay in applying for reissue by showing good reasons for failing to make the application sooner. 27 The ques- tion whether delay is unreasonable is a matter of law for the court. 28 v. Furst, etc., Mfg. Co., 119 U. S. 373, 7 S. Ct. 369, 30 L. ed. 442; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 7 S. Ct. 72, 30 L. ed. 303 [re- versing 15 Fed. 747, 4 Woods 116]; Brown V. Davis, 116 U. S. 237, 6 S. Ct. 379, 29 L. ed. 659; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268, 5 S. Ct. 537, 28 L. ed. 963; Torrent, etc., Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 112 U. S. 659, 5 S. Ct. 501, 28 L. ed. 872; Turner, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Dover Stamping Co., Ill U. S. 319, 4 S. Ct. 401, 28 L. ed. 442; Clements v. Odorless Ex- cavating Apparatus Co., 109 U. S. 641, 3 S. Ct. 525, 27 L. ed. 1060; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 22 L. ed. 699; Troy Laundry Mach. Co. v. Adams Laundry Mach. Co., 112 Fed. 437; Horn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Pelzer, 91 Fed. 665, 34 C. C. A. 45; American Soda- Fountain Co. v. Swietusch, 85 Fed. 968, 29 C. C. A. 506 [affirming 75 Fed. 573]; Mast t?. Iowa Windmill, etc., Co., 76 Fed. 816, 22 C. C. A. 586 [affirming 68 Fed. 213] ; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 132; Hudnut t/. Lafayette Hominy Mills, 26 Fed. 636 ; Flower v. Detroit, 22 Fed. 292; Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. 51; Baltimore Car- Wheel Co. v. North Baltimore Pass. R. Co., 21 Fed. 47; Turrell t?. Bradford, 15 Fed. 808, 21 Blatchf. 284; Holt v. Keeler, 13 Fed. 464, 21 Blatchf. 68; Batten v. Tag- gert, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,107, 2 Wall. Jr. 101 [reversed on other grounds in 17 How. 74, 15 L. ed. 37] ; Swain Turbine, etc., Co. v. Ladd, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,662, 2 Ban. & A. 488, 11 Off. Gaz. 153. See also as sustaining this view Whitely v. Swayne, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,568, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 117 [affirmed in 7 Wall. 685, 19 L. ed. 199]. One having actual, as distinguished from constructive, notice of an original patent is not thereby chargeable with notice of all the possibilities of reissue, so as to make un- available in his behalf the doctrine of inter- vening rights of one making devices covered by the reissue, but not by the original pat- ent. American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Swie- [VIII. B, 2] tusch, 85 Fed. 968, 29 C. C. A. 506 [affirming 75 Fed. 573]. 21. Carpenter Straw-Sewing Mach. Co. v. Searle, 60 Fed. 82, 8 C. C. A. 476 [affirming 52 Fed. 809]. 22. Clements v. Odorless Excavating Ap- paratus Co., 109 U. S. 641, 3 S. Ct. 525, 27 L. ed. 1060; Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783; Flower v. De- troit, 22 Fed. 292; Baltimore Car-Wheel Co. v. North Baltimore Pass. R. Co., 21 Fed. 47; Brainard v. Gramme, 12 Fed. 621, 20 Blatchf. 530. 23. Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783; Flower v. Detroit, 22 Fed. 292; Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. 51. 24. Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. ed. 783. 25. Swain Turbine, etc., Co. v. Ladd, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,662, 2 Ban. & A. 488, 11 Off. Gaz. 153. 26. Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Gaa. No. 5,566. 27. In re Briede, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298, 123 Off. Gaz. 322; In re Heroult, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 42; Whitcomb v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652; Boland v. Thompson, 26 Fed. 633, 23 Blatchf. 440. For facts constituting insufficient excuse see In re Briede, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298; Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 291, 38 L. ed. 137; Ives t\ Sargent, 119 U. S. 652, 7 S. Ct. 436, 30 L, ed. 544; Haines v. Peck, 26 Fed. 625. For circumstances showing sufficient excuse for thirteen or fourteen years' delay see Maitland v. B. Goetz Mfg. Co., 86 Fed. 124, 29 C. C. A. 607; Celluloid Mfg. Co. *. Zylo- nite Brush, etc., Co., 27 Fed. 291. 28. Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217, 8 S. Ct. 834, 31 L. ed. 759; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665; Western Union Tel. Co. t\ Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 30. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 923 C. Identity of Invention 29 1. IN GENERAL. The reissued patent must be for the same invention as the original patent and no new matter can be intro- duced. 30 The invention may be differently stated, but must remain the same. 31 The " same invention " as used in the reissue statute refers to whatever invention was described in the original letters patent and appears to have been secured 29. Conclusiveness and effect of decision in patent office on issue of identity see in- fra, VIII, G, 3. 30. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]; In re Hoey, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 416; Lehigh Valley R. Co. r. Kearney, 158 U. S. 461, 15 S. Ct. 871, 39 L. ed. 1055; Eby v. King, 158 U. S. 366, 15 S. Ct. 972, 39 L. ed. 1018; Olin v. Timken, 155 U. S. 141, 15 S. Ct. 49, 39 L. ed. 100; Dunham f. Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U. S. 103, 14 S. Ct. 986, 38 L. ed. 924; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. ed. 989; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 13 S. Ct. 902, 37 L. ed. 737; Huber v. N. 0. Nelson Mfg. Co., 148 U. S. 270, 13 S. Ct. 603, 37 L. ed. 447; Freeman v. Asmus, 145 U. S. 226, 12 S. Ct. 939, 36 L. ed. 685; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Patent Clothing Co. 17. Glover, 141 U. S. 560, 12 S. Ct. 79, 35 L. ed. 858; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 10 S. Ct. 884, 34 L. ed. 168 j Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 129 U. S. 294, 9 S. Ct. 259, 32 L. ed. 700; Farmers' Friend Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn-Planter Co., 128 U. S. 506, 9 S. Ct. 146, 32 L. ed. 529 ; Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563, 8 S. Ct. 1291, 32 L. ed. 175; Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 7 S. Ct. 814, 30 L. ed. 853; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158; Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429, 6 S. Ct. 229, 29 L. ed. 419; Cochrane v. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 S. Ct. 455, 28 L. ed. 433; McMurray v. Mallory, 111 U. S. 97, 4 S. Ct. 375, 28 L. ed. 365; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. ed. 601; Wing v. Anthony, 106 U. S. 142, 1 S. Ct. 93, 27 L. ed. 110; Johnson v. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 539, 26 L. ed. 1162; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed. 786; Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U. S. 230, 26 L. ed. 133; Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. 128, 26 L. ed. 104; Giant Powder Co. f?. California Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77; Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 348, 24 L. ed. 963; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, 23 L. ed. 973 ; Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 530, 23 L. ed. 128; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 22 L. ed. 699; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Seymour v. Os- borne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Battin t\ Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37 ; Troy Laundry Mach. Co. v. Adams Laundry Mach. Co., 112 Fed. 437; Idealite Co. v. Protection Light Co., 103 Fed. 973; Gaskill i\ Myers, 81 Fed. 854, 26 C. C. A. 642; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 58 Fed. 227, 7 C. C. A. 197; American Heat Insulating Co. v. Johnston, 52 Fed. 228, 3 C. C. A. 53 ; Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss, 39 Fed. 273 ; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 132; Gage v. Kellogg, 26 Fed. 242; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. 94; Driven Well Cases, 16 Fed. 387, 5 McCrary 181; Doane, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 15 Fed. 459; Gould v. Spicer, 15 Fed. 344; Hayes v. Seton, 12 Fed. 120, 20 Blatchf. 484; Walters v. Crandal, 11 Fed. 868, 20 Blatchf. 118; Smith v. Merriam, 6 Fed. 903; Novelty Paper-Box Co. v. Stapler, 5 Fed. 919; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. 793; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65 ; Putnam v. Tinkham, 4 Fed. 411; Siebert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Harper Steam Lubricator Co., 4 Fed. 328 ; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. 17. Scovill Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 288, 18 Blatchf. 248; Ball v. Withington, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 815, 1 Ban. & A. 549, 6 Off. Gaz. 933 ; Cahart V. Austin, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,288, 2 Cliff. 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Cam- meyer v. Newton, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,344, 4 Ban. & A. 159, 16 Off. Gaz. 720; Ex p. Dy- son, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,228 ; Francis v. Mellor, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,039, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 153, 1 Off. Gaz. 48, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 157; Hoffheins 17. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,575, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Johnson v. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,384, 3 Ban. & A. 428, 15 Blatchf. 192 [affirmed in 105 U. S. 539, 26 L. ed. 1162]; Knight v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Sickles t?. Evans, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,839, 2 Cliff. 203, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505 ; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464. Statement of advantage does not change invention. Whitcomb v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652; Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 32 Fed. 320 ; Potter v. Stewart, 7 Fed. 215, 18 Blatchf. 561; Ex p. Ball, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 810. 31. McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 14 Phila. (Pa.) 441; Driven Well Cases, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. ed. 601 ; Elizabeth 17. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Haggenmacher v. Nelson, 88 Fed. 486; Gas- kill f. Myers, 81 Fed. 854, 26 C. C. A. 642; Pratt v. Lloyd, 65 Fed. 800; Whitcomb t'. Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652; Hubsl v. Waldie, 35 Fed. 414; National Pump Cylinder Co. v. Gunnison, 17 Fed. 812; Schil- linger 17. Greenway Brewing Co., 17 Fed. 244, 21 Blatchf. 383; Meyer u. Goodyear India- Rubber Glove Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 891, 20 Blatchf 91; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. V. Scovill Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 288, 18 Blatchf. 248; Cahart i?. Austin, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,288, 2 Cliff. [VIII, C, 1] 924 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS thereby. 32 A broader claim than that in the original patent will not invalidate the reissue if it is for the same invention. 33 If not for the same invention it will. 34 Claims may be amended to include features not before claimed. 35 What may 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Carew v. Boston Electric Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91 ; Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141, 2 Story 432; Christman v. Rumsey, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,704, 4 Ban. & A. 506, 17 Blatchf. 148, 17 Off. Gaz. 903, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 114; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Decker v. Grote, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,726, 10 Blatchf. 331, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143, 3 Off. Gaz. 65; Ex p. Dietz, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,902; Good- year v. Providence Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,583, 2 Cliff. 351, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Hussey v. McCormick, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,948, 1 Biss. 300, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 509 ; Par- ham v. American Buttonhole, etc., Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,713, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,876, 2 Ban. & A. 469, 11 Off. Gaz. 2; Pennsyl- vania Salt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,956, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 144; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quinby, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,240, 4 Ban. & A. 192, 16 Off. Gaz. 135; Sarven v. Hall, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,369, 9 Blatchf. 524, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415, 1 Off. Gaz. 437; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92; Union Paper-Bag Co. v. Nixon, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,386, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 402, 4 Off. Gaz. 31; Union Paper-Collar Co. v. Leland, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,394, 1 Ban. & A. 491, Holmes 427, 7 Off. Gaz. 221; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. 32. Walker Pat. 233; Parker, etc., Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 8 S. Ct. 38, 31 L. ed. 100; In re Briede, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298, 123 Off. Gaz. 322. 33. Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Morey v. Lock- wood, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 230, 19 L. ed. 339; Fay t;. Mason, 120 Fed. 506 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 325] ; Hammond v. Franklin, 22 Fed. 833, 23 Blatchf. 77; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159 ; Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. 597; Combined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, 11 Fed. 149; Wilson v. Coon, 6 Fed. 611, 18 Blatchf. 532 [reversed on other grounds in 113 U. S. 268, 5 S. Ct. 537, 28 L. ed. 963] ; Dorsey Harvester Revolving Rake Co. v. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; Lorillard v. McDowell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,510, 2 Ban. & A. 531, 11 Off. Gaz. 640, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 461; Morse, etc., Tel. Case, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,861 ; Seymour v. Marsh, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,687, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 115, 2 Off. Gaz. 675, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 380. 34. McMurray v. Mallory, 111 U. S. 97, 4 S. Ct. 375, 28 L. ed. 365; American Heat Insulating Co. v. Johnston, 52 Fed. 228, 3 C. C. A. 53 [reversing 48 Fed. 446] ; Inter- national Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer, [VIII, C, 1] 44 Fed. 618; Dunham v. Dennison Mfg Co., 40 Fed. 667 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 103, 14 S. Ct. 986, 38 L. ed. 924] ; Driven Well Cases, 16 Fed. 387 [affirmed in 123 U. S. 267]; Fay v. Preble, 14 Fed. 652, 11 Biss. 422; Searls v. Bouton, 12 Fed. 874, 20 Blatchf. 528; New York Bung, etc., Co. v. Hoffman, 9 Fed. 199, 20 Blatchf. 3; Meyer v. Maxheimer, 9 Fed. 99; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. 793; Giant Powder Co. v. California Vigorit Powder Co., 4 Fed. 720, 6 Sawy. 508; Goodyear v. Provi- dence Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,583. 35. Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co., 59 Fed. 581 [modified in 63 Fed. 962, 11 C. C. A. 528] ; Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. 497; Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. v. Domestic Tel., etc., Co., 42 Fed. 220; Jenkins v. Stetson, 32 Fed. 398; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. 132; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. 684; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159; McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Blun- dell, 11 Fed. 419; Atwood v. Portland Co., 10 Fed. 283; Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. 306; Smith v. Merriam, 6 Fed. 713; Stephenson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 1 Fed. 416; Bantz r. Elsas, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 967, 1 Ban. & A. 251, 6 Off. Gaz. 117; Boomer v. United Power Press Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,638, 2 Ban. & A. 106, 13 Blatchf. 107 ; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91; Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141, 2 Story 432; Chicago Fruit-House Co. v. Busch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,669, 2 Biss. 472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Christian v. Rumsey, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,704, 4 Ban. & A. 506, 17 Blatchf. 148, 17 Off. Gaz. 903; Dorsey Harvester Revolving Rake Co. v. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; French v. Rogers. 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,103, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Gallahue v. Butterfield, 9- Fed. Cas. No. 5,198, 10 Blatchf. 232, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203, 2 Off. Gaz. 645; Gould v. Ballard, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,635, 3 Ban. & A. 324, 13 Off. Gaz. 1081; Herring r. Nelson, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,424, 3 Ban. & A. 55, 14 Blatchf. 293, 12 Off. Gaz. 753 [reversed on other grounds in 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. ed. 601]; Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Morris v. Royer, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,835, 2 Bond 66, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 176; Parham 17. American Buttonhole Overseaming, etc., Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,713, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Penn- sylvania Salt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,956, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 144; Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,876, 2 Ban. & A. 469, 11 Off. Gaz. 2; Richardson v. Lockwood, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,786, 4 Cliff. 128; Seymour v. Marsh, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,687, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 115, 2 Off. Gaz. 675, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 380; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 348; Woodward PATENTS [30 Cye.] 925 have been claimed originally may be included in the reissue. 36 Where the reissue omits several devices which were essential to the original purpose, the reissue is void. 37 2. NEW MATTER a. In General. The rule is otherwise, however, where the omission does not constitute an essential or material change but is only an inci- dental feature. 38 The reissue cannot include matter which formed a part of the patentee's real invention unless that matter was actually included in the original patent. 39 A failure to include it through inadvertence, accident, or mistake does not justify its inclusion by reissue. 40 Where the claims of the reissue contain new patentable matter which is so interwoven with other elements specified in the original that they cannot be separated, the entire reissued claim must be taken together and a patent issued thereon is void. 41 b. Intention to Claim. It must furthermore appear from the face of the papers that the subject-matter covered by the claims of the reissue was not merely disclosed in the original patent, but was sought and intended to be claimed therein. 42 Matter abandoned or disclaimed on the original application cannot v. Dinsmore, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 18,003, 4 Fish. Pat. Gas. 163; Crorapton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 536. 36. In re Briede, 27 App. Gas. (D. C.) 298, 123 Off. Gaz. 322; In re Heroult, 29 App. Gas. (D. C.) 42; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 100 Fed. 849; Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 17 Fed. 515, 8 Sawy. 468; Calkins v. Bertrand, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,317, 2 Ban. & A. 215, 6 Biss. 494, 9 Off. Gaz. 795; Draper v. Wattles, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,073, 3 Ban. & A. 618, 16 Off. Gaz. 629; Swift V. Whisen, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Wilson v. Singer, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,835; In re Briede, 123 Off. Gaz. 322. 37. Johnson v. Flushing, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 539, 26 L. ed. 1162; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, 23 L. ed. 973; Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co., 57 Fed. 631, 6 C. C. A. 487; Brewster v. Shuler, 37 Fed. 785; Blackman v. Kibbler, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,471, 4 Ban. & A. 641, 17 Blatchf. 333, 10 Reporter 257, 17 Off. Gaz. 107. 38. Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. 497; Me Wil- liams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. 4 19-. 39. Schil linger v. Cranford, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 450; Parker v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 8 S. Ct. 38, 31 L. ed. 100; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652, 7 S. Ct. 436, 30 L. ed. 544; Hopkins, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Corbin, 103 U. S. 786, 26 L. ed. 610; Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. 128, 26 L. ed. 104; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, 23 L. ed. 973; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Weston Elec- trical Instrument Co. v. Stevens, 134 Fed. 574, 67 C. C. A. 374; Hammond v. Franklin, 22 Fed. 833, 23 Blatchf. 77; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Fuchs, 16 Fed. 661, 5 McCrary 236; Lorillard v. McAlpin, 14 Fed. 112; At- water Mfg. Co. v. Beecher Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. 608; Siebert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Harper Steam Lubricator Co., 4 Fed. 328 ; Albright v. Celluloid Harness Trimming Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 147, 2 Ban. & A. 629, 12 Off. Gaz. 227; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91; Chicago Fruit-House Co. t?. Busch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,669, 2 Biss. 472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,379, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [reversed on other grounds in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77]; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673; Sarven v. Hall, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,369, 9 Blatchf. 524, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415, 1 Off. Gaz. 437; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,911, 3 Ban, & A. 557, 16 Off. Gaz. 541; Tarr v. Webb, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,757, 10 Blatchf. 96, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 593, 2 Off. Gaz. 568; Vogler v. Semple, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,987, 2 Ban. & A. 556, 7 Biss. 382, 11 Off. Gaz. 9-23. 40. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed. 786; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L: ed. 601; Carpenter Straw-Sewing Mach. Co. v. Searle, 60 Fed. 82, 8 C. G. A. 476; Cahart v. Austin, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,288, 2 Cliff. 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,379, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [reversed on other grounds in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77]. 41. Cahart v. Austin, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,288, 2 Cliff. 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543. 42. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. ed. 989; Freeman v. Asmus, 145 U. S. 226, 12 S. Ct. 939, 36 L. ed. 685 ; Parker v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87, 8 S. Ct. 38, 31 L. ed. 100; Matthews v. Boston Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54, 26 L. ed. 1022; Whip Co. v. Hassler, 134 Fed. 398; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; American Soda- Fountain Co. v. Zwietusch, 75 Fed. 573; Car- penter Straw-Sewing Mach. Co. v. Searls, 52 Fed. 809 [affirmed in 60 Fed. 82, 8 C. C. A. 476] ; Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 26 Fed. 522 ; Turrell v. Bradford, 15 Fed. 808, 21 Blatchf. 284; Kells v. Mc- Kenzie, 9 Fed. 284; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. [VIII, C, 2, b] 926 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS ordinarily be claimed on reissue. 43 This doctrine does not apply, however, if the- disclaimer was made by accident, inadvertence, or mistake. 44 c. Apparatus, Process, and Product. A patent for an apparatus cannot gener- ally be reissued to claim the process, since a process and the apparatus are not necessarily one and the same invention. 45 A process patent cannot generally be reissued to cover the apparatus. 46 There is no hard and fixed rule, however, and in some cases such a reissue may be allowed. 46 * A process patent may, however, in some cases be reissued to cover the product produced by the process. 47 3. REINSERTION OF CANCELED CLAIM. The patentee cannot obtain by reissue claims inserted in the original application and canceled therefrom in view of objection or rejection by the patent office. 48 D. Surrender of Original Patent. To obtain a reissue, the applicant must surrender the original patent, but the surrender does not take effect until the reissue is granted, and if the reissue is refused the original patent is in force. 49 The so-called surrender is nothing but a preliminary offer prior to the issue of the new patent ; * the original patent is extinguished by reissue. 51 Whether, if 5,379, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [reversed on other grounds in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77]. 43. Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256, 25 L. ed. 865; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 115 Fed. 810; Put- nam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. 127, 11 Biss. 233; Edgarton v. Furst, etc., Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. 450, 10 Biss. 402; Atwater Mfg. Co. t;. Beecher Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. 608. 44. American Shoe-Tip Co. v. National Shoe-Toe Protector Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 317, 2 Ban. & A. 551, 11 Off. Gaz. 740; Hayden v. James, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,260; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946, 5 Blatchf. 134, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362. 45. Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429, 6 S. Ct. 229, 29 L. ed. 419; Heald V. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed. 786; Brainard v. Cramme, 12 Fed. 621, 20 Blatchf. 530; New v. Warren, 22 Off. Gaz. 587. 46. Wing v. Anthony, 106 U. S. 142, 1 S. Ct. 9-3, 27 L. ed. 110; James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 26 L. ed. 786. 46a. In re Heroult, 29 App. Cas. (D. C.) 42. 47. Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77; Tucker v. Dana, 7 Fed. 213; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. No. 721, 3 Ban. & A. 235, 13 Off. Gaz. 273; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Higgin, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 722, 3 Ban. & A. 462, 15 Blatchf. 290, 14 Off. Gaz. 414; Tucker v. Burditt, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,216, 4 Ban. & A. 569; Hunter v. Carrick', 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 300 [affirming 10 Ont. App. 449 (reversing 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 489)]; Auer Incandescent Light Mfg. Co. v. O'Brien, 5 Can. Exch. 243. Process reissued for product declared in- valid in the following cases see Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 13 S. Ct. 902, 37 L. ed. 737; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo Lubri- cating Oil Co., 20 Fed. 850; Kelleher v. Bar- ring, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673. [VIII, C, 2, b] 48. In re Lacroix, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 299; In re Denton, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 504; In re Hatchman, 3 Mackey (D. C.) 288; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. ed. 989; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258, 11 S. Ct. 71, 34 L. ed. 652; Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 8 S. Ct. 399, 31 L. ed. 269; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523, 5 S. Ct. 1007, 29 L. ed. 232; Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Cartridge Co., 112 U. S. 624, 5 S. Ct. 475, 28 L. ed. 828; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U. S. 222, 26 L. ed. 149; Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256, 25 L. ed. 865; Franklin v. Illinois Moulding Co., 128 Fed. 48 [affirmed in 138 Fed. 58, 70 C, C. A. 484] ; American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Swietusch, 85 Fed. 968, 29 C. C. A. 506; Dobson v. Lees, 30 Fed. 625; Boland v. Thompson, 26 Fed. 633, 23 Blatchf. 440; Arnheim v. Finster, 26 Fed. 277; Arn- heim v. Finster, 24 Fed. 276; Streit v. Lauter, 11 Fed. 309; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,379-, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [reversed on other grounds in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77]; Wicks v. Stevens, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,616, 2 Ban. & A. 318, 2 Woods 310. Actual mistake in canceling claim may be corrected. Morey v. Lockwood, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 230, 19 L. ed. 339; Dunbar v. East- ern Elevating Co., 75 Fed. 567; Hutchinson v. Everett, 33 Fed. 502. 49. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]; McCormick Har- vesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman-Miller Co., 169 U. S. 606, 18 S. Ct. 443, 42 L. ed. 875; Allen v. Culp, 166 U. S. 501, 17 S. Ct. 644, 41 L. ed. 1093; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379. Grounds of refusal of reissue in terms may show that original patent is void. Peck v. Collins, 103 U. S. 660, 26 L. ed. 512. 50. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 9 Fee Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379. 51. Peck . Collins, 103 U. S. 660, 26 L. 512; Franklin v. Illinois Moulding Co., 1! Fed. 48 [affirmed in 138 Fed. 58, 70 C. C. 484]; Brown v. Hinkley, 4 Fed. Cas. Nc PATENTS [30 Cye.] 927 the reissue be void, the patentee may fall back on his original patent has not been decided by the supreme court, although the question has been raised. 52 It has been held in the circuit court that, if the reissue is void for want of authority to make it, the surrender is ineffective for want of authority to accept it. 53 Suit cannot be maintained on the original after application for reissue and before the grant. 54 E. Applications and Proceedings Thereon 1. IN GENERAL. Where the application should put forth facts entitling the patentee to a reissue 55 it is not indispensable that the petitioner should use the exact phraseology of the statute if he employs language which actually conveys its legal meaning. 56 It must be signed and sworn to by the inventor if he is alive and must be acquiesced in by assignees. 57 The proceedings thereon are the same as in the case of original applications except that a filing fee of thirty dollars is charged and no final fee is required. 58 2. DIVISIONAL REISSUES. Several reissues may be granted for parts of the thing patented upon the payment of separate fees and other due proceedings had. 59 F. Reissues of Reissued Patents. A reissue may be granted of a reissued patent as well as of the original, 60 and a second reissue may return to the language of the original patent and be identical therewith. 61 G. Conclusiveness and Effect of Patent Office Decisions l. IN GENERAL. The grant of a reissue by the patent office raises a presumption that the patentee 2,012, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 370, 3 Off. Gaz. 384; Reedy v. Scott, 10 Am. & Eng. Pat. Cas. 133. 52. See Allen v. Gulp, 166 U. S. 501, 17 S. Ct. 644, 41 L. ed. 1093; Eby v. King, 158 U. S. 366, 15 S. Ct. 972, 39 L. ed. 1018. 53. French v. Rogers, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,103, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133. See also Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248. 54. Moffitt v. Garr, 1 Black (U. S.) 273, 17 L. ed. 207 [affirming 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,690, 1 Bond 315, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 610] ; Burrell v. Hackley, 35 Fed. 833. Compare Robbins v. Illinois Watch Co., 50 Fed. 542 [affirmed in 52 Fed. 215, 3 C. C. A. 42]. 55. Eby v. King, 158 U. S. 366, 15 S. Ct. 972, 39 L. ed. 1018, in which it was said to be doubtful whether the commissioner ac- quired any jurisdiction, where there is only a bare statement that the patentee wishes to surrender his patent and obtain a reissue. 56. Gold, etc., Tel. Co. v. Wiley, 17 Fed. 234. 57. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]; Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335; Selden v. Stockwell Self -Lighting Gas Burner Co., 9 Fed. 390, 19 Blatchf. 544. And see supra, VIII, A, 3. Licensee need not join in application. Meyer v. Bailey, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,516, 2 Ban. & A. 73, 8 Off. Gaz. 437. Assignee may file where inventor is dead. Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. 51. Guardian of insane person may file appli- cation. Whitcomb -v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 47 Fed. 652. Absence of oath has been held not fatal. Hartshorn v. Eagle Shade Roller Co., 18 Fed. 90. 58. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916, 4934 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 3393, 3400]. Subject to regxamination see McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman-Miller Co., 169 U. S. 606, 18 S. Ct. 443, 42 L. ed. 875; Allen v. Culp, 166 U. S. 501, 17 S. Ct. 644, 41 L. ed. 1093; Peck v. Collins, 103 U. S. 660, 26 L. ed. 512; Holloway v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335; Wilson v. Singer, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,835. 59. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393]; International Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. 618; Selden v. Stockwell Self-Lighting Gas. Burner Co., 9 Fed. 390, 19 Blatchf. 544; Tucker v. Dana, 7 Fed. 213; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. No. 721, 3 Ban. & A. 235, 13 Off. Gaz. 273; Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,956, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 144; Ex p. Selden, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,638; Tucker v. Burditt, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,216, 4 Ban. & A. 569; Wheeler v. Clip- per Mower, etc., Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,493, 10 Blatchf. 181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 2 Off. Gaz. 442; Wheeler v. McCormick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,499, 11 Blatchf. 334, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 551, 4 Off. Gaz. 692. 60. Schneider v. Bassett, 13 Fed. 351 ; Sel- den v. Stockwell Self-Lighting Gas Burner Co., 9 Fed. 390, 19 Blatchf. 544; French v. Rogers, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,103, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Giant Powder Co. v. California Powder Works, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,379, 2 Ban. & A. 131, 3 Sawy. 448 [reversed in 98 U. S. 126, 25 L. ed. 77]; Morse, etc., Tel. Case, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,861; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,396, 2 Ban. & A. 60, 7 Off. Gaz. 877, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 479. 61. Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Eureka Spindle Co., 33 Fed. 836 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 637, 12 S. Ct. 980, 36 L. ed. 849] ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite Brush, etc., Co., 27 Fed. 291; Giant Powder Co. t'. Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. 509. [VIII, G, 1] 928 [SO Cyc.] PATENTS was entitled to it and therefore the reissue isprima facie valid. 62 Except as to matters appearing on the face of the papers showing excess of jurisdiction by the patent it is conclusive. 63 2. As TO GROUNDS FOR REISSUE. The conclusion of the patent office officials as to inadvertence, accident, or mistake and as to regularity of proceedings is conclusive in the absence of a showing of fraud. 64 8. As TO IDENTITY. The grant of a reissue raises a presumption that it covers the same invention which was sought and intended to be claimed in the original, but such presumption is not conclusive and is to be decided from the face of the papers. 65 62. Crown Cork, etc., Co. ?. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72; Beach v. Hobbs, 92 Fed. 146, 34 C. C. A. 248; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121; American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 296, 4 Ban. & A. 551, 17 Blatchf. 208; American Nicholson Pave- ment Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 311, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424, 3 Off. Gaz. 522 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 10001 ; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Eicke- meyer Hat Blocking Mach. Co. v. Pearce, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,312, 10 Blatchf. 403, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 219, 3 Off. Gaz. 150; Forbes v. Bar- stow Stove Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279, 4 Blatchf. 493, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181. 63. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Spaeth v. Barney, 22 Fed. 828; Giant Powder Co. v. California Vigorit Powder Co., 4 Fed. 720, 6 Sawy. 508; Bird- sail v. McDonald, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,434, 1 Ban. & A. 165, 6 Off. Gaz. 682; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29-4; Chicago Fruit- House Co. v. Busch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,669, 2 Biss. 472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Judson v. Bradford, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,564, 3 Ban. & A. 539, 16 Off. Gaz. 171; Metropolitan Washing- Mach. Co. v. Providence Tool Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,507, Holmes 161 [affirmed in 20 Wall. 342, 22 L. ed. 303] ; Milligan, etc., Glue Co. v. Upton, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,607, 1 Ban. & A. 497, 4 Cliff. 237, 6 Off. Gaz. 837; Par- ham i/. American Buttonhole, etc., Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,713, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,911, 3 Ban. & A. 557, 16 Off. Gaz. 541; Wells v. Gill, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,394, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89, 2 Off. Gaz. 590 ; Wells v. Jaques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. 64. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 6 S. Ct. 451, 28 L. ed. 665; Stimpson v. West Chester R. Co., 4 How. (U. S.) 380, 11 L. ed. 1020; Justi v. Clark, 108 Fed. 659, 47 C. C. A. 565 [affirming 100 Fed. 855]; Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 916; As- [VIII, G, 1] mus v. Alden, 27 Fed. 684; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 30; Selden v. Stockwell Self-Lighting Gas Burner Co., 9 Fed. 390, 19 Blatchf. 544; Smith v. Merriam, 6 Fed. 713; Christman v. Rumsey, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 2,704, 4 Ban. & A. 506, 17 Blatchf. 148, 17 Off. Gaz. 903, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 114; Day v. Goodyear, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,678; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,575, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,724, 3 Ban. & A. 312, 13 Off. Gaz. 1009; Middleton Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141 ; Miller, etc., Mfg. Co. t;. Du Brul, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,597, 2 Ban. & A. 618, 12 Off. Gaz. 351; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a; Swift u. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,911, 3 Ban. & A. 557, 16 Off. Gaz. 541. Limitation of rule. Error manifest from the record will be considered. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 115 Fed. 810; Peoria Target Co. V. Cleaveland Target Co., 58 Fed. 227, 7 C. C. A. 197 [affirming 47 Fed. 728] ; Featherstone r. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co., 57 Fed. 631, 6 . C. A. 487. In Canada the ruling of the commissioner of patents that the patent was defective or in- operative is conclusive. Auer Incandescent Light Mfg. Co. v. O'Brien, 5 Can. Exch. 243. 65. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. 306; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121; American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Eliza- beth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 311, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424, 3 Off. Gaz. 522 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000] ; Andrews v. Wright, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 382, 3 Ban. & A. 329, 6 Re- porter 193, 13 Off. Gaz. 969; Bantz v. Elsas, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 967, 1 Ban. & A. 351, 6 Off. Gaz. 117; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; French v. Rogers, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,103, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Guidet v. Barber, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,857, 5 Off. Gaz. 149; House v. Young, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,738, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 335; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946, 5 Blatchf. 134, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; Hussey v. McCormick, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,948, 1 Biss. 300, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 509; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. NO. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 929 H. Validity, Construction, and Operation of Reissues 66 i. VALIDITY. Aside from the questions of new matter and estoppel, the validity of a reissue is determined by the same considerations as the original patent, 67 and, upon the questions of anticipation and public use and sale, relates back to the date of the original application for patent. 68 Fraud will invalidate the reissue, 69 but clerical error, 70 or irregularities of procedure in matters not vital, 71 will not. One claim in a reissue may be void without necessarily invalidating the other claims, and in such case it is proper to disclaim the void claim, 72 and a reissue is not invalid merely because the claim of the original patent was valid. 73 2. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION a. In General. As respects the construction and operation of reissues the same rules apply as in original patents. 74 Cas. No. 11,279, 4 Blatchf. 493, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181: Reissner v. Anness, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,688, 3 Ban. & A. 176, 13 Off. Gaz. 870; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a; Stevens v. Pritchard, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,407, 2 Ban. & A. 390, 4 Cliff. 417, 10 Off. Gaz. 505; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 13,911, 3 Ban. & A. 557, 16 Off. Gaz. 541 ; U. S., etc., Felting Co. v. Haven, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,788, 2 Ban. & A. 164, 3 Dill. 131, 9 Off. Gaz. 253; Wood- worth v. Edwards, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,014, 2 Eobb Pat. Cas. 610, 3 Woodb. & M. 120. That identity is determined by comparison of original and reissue see Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217, 8 S. Ct. 834, 31 L. ed. 759; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, 23 L. ed. 973; Stimpson v. West Chester R. Co., 4 How. (U. S.) 380, 11 L. ed. 1020; Searls v. Worden, 11 Fed. 501; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. 793; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 598, 2 Woodb. & M. 121 ; American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 296, 4 Ban. & A. 603, 17 Blatchf. 303 ; Bridge v. Brown, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,857, Holmes 53; Cahart v. Austin, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,288, 2 Cliff. 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Goodyear 17. Berry, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,556, 2 Bond 189, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439; Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,671, 4 Cliff. 88, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; John- son v. Beard, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,371, 2 Ban. & A. 50, 8 Off. Gaz. 435 ; Middleton Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141 ; Reissner v. Anness, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,688, 3 Ban. & A. 176, 13 Off. Gaz. 870; Sickles v. Evans, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,839, 2 Cliff. 203, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,911, 3 Ban. & A. 557, 16 Off. Gaz. 541 ; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,227, 2 Ban. & A. 401, 4 Cliff. 397, 10 Off. Gaz. 464; Woodward v. Dinsmore, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,003, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 163. The question of identity is one of law for the court. Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33. That original patent must be introduced for comparison see Doherty v. Haynes, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,963, 1 Ban. & A. 289, 4 Cliff. 291, 6 Off. Gaz. 118; Johnson v. Beard, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,371, 2 Ban. & A. 50, 8 Off. Gaz. 435. 66. Identity of invention see supra, VIII, C. [59] 67. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4916 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3393] Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 292, 8 L. ed. 689; Forsyth v. Clapp, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,949, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528, Holmes 278, 4 Off. Gaz. 527. 68. U. S. Stamping Co. v. King, 7 Fed. 860, 17 Blatchf. 55; Bloomer v. Stolley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,559, Fish. Pat. Rep. 376, 5 McLean 158; House v. Young, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,738, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 335; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946, 5 Blatchf. 134, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; Smith v. Pearce, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,089, 2 McLean 176, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 13; Stanley v. Whipple, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,286, 2 McLean 35, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 1; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,016, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495, 1 Woodb. & M. 248. 69. Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159; Poppen- husen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,280, 5 Blatchf. 46, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213; Singer v. Walmsley, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,900, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558 ; Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. 70. Bignall v. Harvey, 4 Fed. 334, 18 Blatchf. 353; Kendricks . Scott/ 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,833, 9 Blatchf. 301, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 245, 2 Off. Gaz. 4 ; United Nickel Co. v. American Nickel- Plating Works, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,405, 4 Ban. & A. 74. Mistake in name of the invention trans- ferred is not vital. Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61 ; Case v. Morey, 1 N. H. 347. Designation of assignee by last name only is sufficient where his identity is certain. Fisk v. Hollander, MacArthur & M. (D. C.) 355. Assignment to a person named "et al." is valid. Bliss v. Reed, 102 Fed. 903 [affirmed in 106 Fed. 314, 45 C. C. A. 304]. 89. Canda v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co., 123 Fed. 95 [modified in 124 Fed. 436]; D. M. Sechler Carriage Co. v. Deere, etc., Co., 113 Fed. 285, 51 C. C. A. 242; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 107 Fed. 134 [affirmed in 108 Fed. 870, 48 C. C. A. 116]; Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. v. Whitehurst, 56 Fed. 589; Regan Vapor-Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas-Engine Co., 49 Fed. 68, 1 C. C. A. 169; Lowry v. Cowles Electric Co., C. D. 1893, 549. A general transfer of property carries pat- ents. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367, 19 L. ed. 948; Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64 [affirmed in 160 Fed. 928]; Schaum v. Baker, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,440. 90. Douglass v. Campbell, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 241 ; Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Johnson R. Signal Co., 61 Fed. 940, 10 C. C. A. 176 [reversing 59 Fed. 20] ; Ritter v. Serrell, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,866, 2 Blatchf. 379; Lowry v. Cowles Electric Co., C. D. 1893, 549 ; Rapp v. Killing, C. D. 1890, 483. 91. Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 452, 20 L. ed. 777; Kansas City Hay-Press Co. t;. Devol, 72 Fed. 717 [reversed on other grounds in 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578] ; National Folding Box, etc., Co. v. American Paper Pail, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 488; Gibson v. Cook, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,393, 2 Blatchf. 144, Fish. Pat. Rep. 415. Lack of consideration invalidates the as- signment of a patent. Cowles v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 81 N. Y. App. Div. 414, 80 N. Y. Suppl. 811 [affirmed in 179 N. Y. 87, 71 N. E. 468]. An assignment by a person of unsound mind is void. Colburn v. Van Velzer, 11 Fed. 795, 3 McCrary 650. Assignment void for fraud see Goldsmith 17. Kooprnan, 140 Fed. 618. Misrepresentations. Misrepresentations by a vendor of a patent right entitle the vendee to rescind where they amount to an untrue statement of some present fact (Bell v. Felt, 102 111. App. 218; Lederer v. Yule, 67 N. J. Eq. 65, 57 Atl. 309; Lindsay v. Roraback, 57 N. C. 124; Hull v. Fields, 76 Va. 594) ; but a mere promise or prediction is not sufficient (Lederer v. Yule, supra], and misrepresenta- tions amounting to mere " trade talk " will not vitiate a sale (Des Moines Ins. Co. v. Mc- Intire, 99 Iowa 50, 68 N. W. 563). Where the whole transaction is founded upon a mistake of fact, the sale is void. Burrall v. Jewett, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 134. 92. Agreement for assignment see supra, XI, A, 2, c. Assignment of license see infra, XI, B, 1, f. Record as cadence see infra, XIII, C, 14, h. 93. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4898. Purchaser may rely on record see Gates Iron Works v. Eraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734; Paulus v. M. M. Buck Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 594, 64 C. C. A. 162; Secombe v. Campbell, 2 Fed. 357, 18 Blatchf. 108; Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. 338, 18 Blatchf. 92; Boyd v. McAlpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,748, 3 McLean 427, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 277; Newell v. West, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,150, 2 Ban. & A. 113, 13 Blatchf. 114, 9 Off. Gaz. 1110, 8 Off. Gaz. 598. Record within three months fixes title see Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. 697 [af- firmed in 140 U. S. 669, 11 S. Ct. 1015, 35 L. ed. 597]. English practice. Assignee cannot sue un- til the deed is recorded. Chollet v. Hoffman, 7 E. & B. 686, 3 Jur. N. S. 935, 26 L. J. Q. B. 249, 5 Wkly. Rep. 573, 90 E. C. L. 686. As- signment is good against the assignor, al- though not recorded. Hassall v. Wright, L. R. 10 Eq. 509, 40 L. J. Ch. 145, 18 Wkly. Rep. 821. Purchaser with notice has no equity. New Ixion Tyre, etc., Co. 17. Spilsbury, [1898] 2 Ch. 484, 67 L. J. Ch. 557, 79 L. T. Rep. N. S. 229 [affirming [1898] 2 Ch. 137, 67 L. J. Ch. 424, 78 L. T. Rep. N. S. 543, 46 Wkly. Rep. 567]. Estoppel to allege failure to record see Hassall v. Wright, L. R. 10 Eq. 509, 40 L. J. Ch. 145, 18 Wkly. Rep. 821. High court of justice has jurisdiction over register and may expunge or order correction. In re Horsley, [XI, A, 4, a] 948 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS three months, an unrecorded prior assignment will prevail. 94 This statute is merely directory for the protection of bona fide purchasers without notice, and does not require the recording of an assignment within three months as a pre- requisite to its validity. 95 Hence, as between the parties and as against everyone except a subsequent purchaser without notice, an unrecorded assignment is good. 96 The assignment of a patent not yet issued need not be recorded. 97 Nor is it necessary that an assignment of a patent by a bankruptcy court to the assignee of the owner of the patent be recorded. 98 b. Notice. An unrecorded written assignment is good against a subsequent purchaser having actual or constructive notice of it. 99 e. Acknowledgment Before Notary. If the assignment is acknowledged before a notary public or certain other officers, the certificate of the notary or other offi- cer is prima facie evidence of execution. 1 The acknowledgment of an assignment of a patent relates to the date of the assignment. 2 5. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION a. In General. Assignments and grants of patent rights are subject to the same rules of construction as other contracts. 3 L. R. 8 Eq. 475, 39 L. J. Ch. 157, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 345, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1054; In re Morey, 25 Beav. 581, 6 Wkly. Rep. 612, 53 Eng. Reprint 759; In re Morgan, 24 Wkly. Rep. 245. Master of rolls may expunge entry wrongfully made. Re Green, 24 Beav. 145, 53 Eng. Reprint 312; In re Horsley, L. R. 4 Ch. 784, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1000. Canadian practice. Assignment is good be- tween parties without record, but not against subsequent purchasers. Doyon v. Canadian Fire Extinguishing Co., 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 367. 94. Gibson v. Cook, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,393, 2 Blatchf. 144, Fish. Pat. Rep. 415. 95. Winfrey v. Gallatin, 72 Mo. App. 191; Pitts i\ Whitman, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,196, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189, 2 Story 609. 96. Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327; Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 377; Hildreth v. Turner, 17 111. 184; McKernan v. Kite, 6 Ind. 428; Moore v. Bare, 11 Iowa 198; Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539; Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61; Home v. Chatham, 64 Tex. 36; Maurice v. Devol, 23 W. Va. 247 ; Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Dela- ware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64; Boyd v. McAlpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,748, 3 McLean 427, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 277 ; Case v. Redfield, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,494, 4 McLean 526, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 741; Hall v. Speer, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,947", 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 513; Pitts v. Whit- man, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,196, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189, 2 Story 609; Turnbull v. Weir Plow Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,244, 1 Ban. & A. 544, 6 Biss. 225, 7 Off. Gaz. 173; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,854. Purchaser without consideration. An un- recorded assignment is good against a later assignment without consideration. Saxton v. Aultman, 15 Ohio St. 471. 97. Wright v. Randel, 8 Fed. 591, 19 Blatchf. 495. 98. Prime v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,421, 4 Ban. & A. 379, 16 Blatchf. 453. 99. Coleman v. Ryan, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 715, 68 N. Y. Suppl. 253 ; Hapgood v. Rosenstock, 23 Fed. 86, 23 Blatchf. 95 ; Dare v. Boylston, 6 Fed. 493, 18 Blatchf. 548; Ashcroft v. Wai- [XI, A, 4, a] worth, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 580, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528, Holmes 152, 2 Off. Gaz. 546; Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,142, 8 Blatchf. 295, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Valentine v. Marshal, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,812o. Knowledge of facts sufficient to put a party on inquiry will bind him as notice. Stanton Mfg. Co. i?. McFarland, (N. J. Ch. 1895) 30 Atl. 1058 [affirmed in 53 N. J. Eq. 649, 33 Atl. 962, 51 Am. St. Rep. 647] ; Auburn But- ton Co. 17. Sylvester, 72 Hun (N. Y.) 498, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 237 [affirmed in 147 N. Y. 714, 42 N. E. 721] ; Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. v. Whitehurst, 72 Fed. 496, 19 C. C. A. 130; National Heeling-Mach. Co. v. Abbott, 70 Fed. 54; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371; Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 27 Fed. 699; Hamilton v. Kingsbury, 4 Fed. 428, 17 Blatchf. 460; Prime v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,421, 4 Ban. & A. 379, 16 Blatchf. 453. Notice held insufficient see Regan Vapor- Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas-Engine Co., 49 Fed. 68, 1 C. C. A. 169. A purchaser with notice holds in trust for the first assignee. Whitney 17. Burr, 115 111. 289, 3 N. E. 434; Pontiac Knit Boot Co. v. Merino Shoe Co., 31 Fed. 286. 1. Act March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 693. Act applies to instruments executed before its passage. Lanyon Zinc Co. v. Brown, 115 Fed. 150, 53 C. C. A. 354; De Laval Separator Co. v. Vermont Farm-Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 813. The signature of the assignor need not be proved where the assignment is duly acknowl- edged before a notary. New York Pharmical Assoc. 17. Tilden, 14 Fed. 740, 21 Blatchf. 190. Conversely, it is not essential to the validity of an assignment of a patent that it should be acknowledged, where the genuineness of the assignor's signature is proved. Clancy v. Troy Belting, etc., Co., 152 Fed. 188 [reversed on other grounds in 157 Fed. 554]. 2. Murray Co. i?. Continental Gin Co., 149 Fed. 989, 79 C. C. A. 499. 3. Intent rather than technical form con- trols. See Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 949 b. Warranty. The assignment of a patent creates an implied warranty of title in the assignor, 4 but no warranty that the patent is valid, 5 or that the invention does not infringe prior patents. 6 e. Rights and Interests Conveyed (i) IN GENERAL. Within the limits of the grant the assignee has the same rights as were formerly possessed by the pat- entee. 7 An assignment of all the grantor's right, title, and interest in and to a certain patent carries only the existing interest of the grantor at the term of the assignment. 8 Words restricting the grant to such patents as the grantor "holds in his own right " do not exclude patents of which his tenure is not exclusive. 9 An assignment of an invention as described in the specifications filed covers all the devices claimed therein to be patentable, and not merely such as are covered by the patent as ultimately issued. 10 But an assignment of all right, title, and interest in an improvement of a machine already patented conveys no interest in the original patent. 11 An assignee may bring suit in his own name and may transfer the whole or a part of his interest. 12 v. Lowrey, 79 Fed. 331, 24 C. C. A. 616; Kearney *, Lehigh Valley R. Co., 27 Fed. 699. Contemporaneous instruments referring to same matter construed together see Ham- mond i). Mason, etc., Organ Co., 92 U. S. 724, 23 L. ed. 767; Levy v. Dattlebaum, 63 Fed. 992; Regan Vapor-Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas- Engine Co., 47 Fed. 511 [reversed on other grounds in 49 Fed. 68, 1 C. C. A. 169]. Particular contracts construed see Stand- ard Combustion Co. v. Farr, 9 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 509, 14 Cine. L. Bui. 201; Reese's Ap- peal, 122 Pa. St. 392, 15 Atl. 807; Geiser Mfg. Co. v. Frick Co., 92 Fed. 189 ; Lowry v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 56 Fed. 488; Adriance v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 55 Fed. 288 [affirmed in 56 Fed. 918, 6 C. C. A. 168]; Siebert Cylinder Oil- Cup Co. v. Beggs, 32 Fed. 790; Buckley v. Sawyer Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. 358, 2 McCrary 350 ; Emigh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,448, 1 Biss. 400, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387. 4. Macon Knitting Co. v. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 138, 55 Atl. 401 ; Herzog v. Heyman, 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 27, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 74; Carman v. Trade, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 440; Faulks v. Kamp, 3 Fed. 898, 17 Blatchf. 432. Purchaser must investigate prior claims of which he has notice sufficient to put him on inquiry. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575. 5. Connecticut. Bull v. Pratt, 1 Conn. 342. Indiana. Detrick v. McGlone, 46 Ind. 291. Maine. Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 430. Massachusetts. Gilmore v. Aiken, 118 Mass. 94. Michigan. Brazel v. Smith, 141 Mich. 628, 104 N. W. 1097. New Jersey. Barclay v. Charles Roome Parmele Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 218, 61 Atl. 715; Macon Knitting Co. v. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 138, 55 Atl. 401. New York. Nilsson v. De Haven, 47 N. Y. App. Div. 537, 62 N. Y. Suppl. 506 [affirmed in 168 N. Y. 656, 61 N. E. 1131]. But see Herzog v. Heyman, 151 N. Y. 587, 45 N. E. 1127, 56 Am. St. Rep. 646. United States. Milligan v. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 570. England. Otto v. Singer, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 220. 6. Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Harney, 155 Mass. 507, 29 N. E. 1148; Home v. Hoyle, 27 Fed. 216. An express warranty against infringement may be made. Green v. Watson, 10 Ont. App. 113 [affirming 2 Ont. 627]. 7. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895, 4898 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]. See also Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Werder- man v. Soci6t6 Generate d'Electricit, 19 Ch. D. 246, 45 L. T. Rep. N. S. 514, 30 Wkly. Rep. 33. After assignment the assignor cannot make or sell the invention and he may be enjoined from so doing. Bennett v. Wortman, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 292. 8. Waterman v. Shipman, 130 N. Y. 301, 29 N. E. Ill; Regan Vapor-Engine Co. v. Pacific Gas-Engine Co., 47 Fed. 511 [reversed on other grounds in 49 Fed. 68, 1 C. C. A. 169]; Turnbull v. Weir Plow Co., 14 Fed. 108, 9 Biss. 334; Ashcroft v. Walworth, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 580, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528, Holmes 152, 2 Off. Gaz. 546; Goodyear v. Gary, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,562, 4 Blatchf. 271, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424 ; Turnbull v. Weir Plow Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,244, 1 Ban. & A. 544, 6 Biss. 225, 7 Off. Gaz. 173. 9. Lowry v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 56 Fed. 488; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. 10. Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. 458. 11. Leach v. Dresser, 69 Me. 129. 12. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4919 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923 ; Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697, 10 S. Ct. 378, 33 L. ed. 787 ; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L. ed. 888; D. M. Sechler Carriage Co. v. Deere, etc., Co., 113 Fed 285, 51 C. C. A. 242; Paine v. Trask, 56 Fed. 233, 5 C. C. A. 497 ; Cook v. Bidwell, 8 Fed. 452. [XI, A, 5, C, (I)] 950 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS (n) EIGHTS IN EXTENDED TERM The extent to which an assignee may enjoy the benefits of an extended term of a patent depends entirely upon the stipulations of the contract. 14 The operation of such an instrument is not lim- ited to the term specified in the patent where the instrument contains apt words to show that the parties intended that its operation should be more comprehen- sive; 15 but in the absence of a specific provision to that effect an assignment of letters patent does not carry with it any interest in a subsequently extended term. 16 Where, however, the conveyance is of the invention, before the issue of letters patent therefor, the assignee is entitled, unless the instrument of assignment shows a different intention, to obtain a renewal at the expiration of the original term 17 (in) RIGHTS IN REISSUE. Where after assignment a patent is reissued the rights of the assignee are the same under a reissued patent as under the original. 18 But the assignee must consent to or ratify such reissue. 19 (iv) AFTER -ACQUIRED TITLE. Where an instrument of transfer is made when the assignor has no title, an after-acquired title inures to the benefit of the assignee. 20 (v) RIGHTS OF ACTION FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT. The assignee of a patent does not acquire a right of action for past infringement unless so specified in the assignment. 21 But when the assignment includes, expressly or impliedly, all 13. Rights of licensees see infra, XI, B, 1, c. 14. Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; Adams v. Bridge water Iron Co., 26 Fed. 324; Fire Extinguisher Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 16 Fed. 543; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 197; Chase v. Walker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,630, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; Day v. Union India- Rubber Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,691, 3 Blatchf. 488 [affirmed in 20 How. 216, 15 L. ed. 883] ; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,855. 15. Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 452, 20 L. ed. 777; Philadel- phia, etc., R. Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367, 19 L. ed. 948; Case v. Redfield, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,494, 4 McLean 526, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 741; Chase v. Walker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,630, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; Gear v. Gros- venor. 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380; Gear v. Holmes, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,292, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 595 ; Goodyear t*. Cary, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,562. 4 Blatchf. 271, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,193, 3 Blatchf. 201; Ruggles v. Eddy, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,117, 10 Blatchf. 52, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 581; Sayles v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,417, 3 Ban. & A. 219, 5 Dill. 561; Thayer v. Wales, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,872, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130; Wilson v. Turner, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,845, Fish. Pat. Rep. 28, Taney 278 \affirmed in 4 How. 712, 11 L. ed. 1171]. 16. Goodyear v. Day, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 154; W T ilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Bloomer v. Stolley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,559, Fish. Pat. Rep. 376, 5 McLean 158; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,945, Fish. Pat. Rep. 65, 4 McLean 64; Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380; Gibson v. Cook, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,393, 2 Blatchf. 144, Fish. Pat. Rep. 415; Goodyear V. Hullihen, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,573, 3 Fish. [XI. A, 5, e, (ii)] Pat. Cas. 251, 2 Hughes 492; Jenkins v. Nicolson Pavement Co., 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,273, 1 Abb. 567, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 201 [reversed on other grounds in 14 Wall. 452, 20 L. ed. 777]; Phelps v. Comstock, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,075, Fish. Pat. Rep. 215, 4 McLean 353; Waterman v. Wallace, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,261, 2 Ban. & A. 126, 13 Blatchf. 128; Woodworth v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,019, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 257, 3 Story 171. No right to extension implied. Johnson v. Wilcox, etc., Sewing Mach. Co., 27 Fed. 689, 23 Blatchf. 531; Bloomer v. Stolley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,559, Fish. Pat. Rep. 376, 5 McLean 158; Mowry v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,893, 10 Blatchf. 89, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586 ; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. 17. Hendrie v. Sayles, 98 U. S. 546, 25 L. ed. 176. 18. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4895 [U. S, Comp. St. (1901) p. 3385]. See also Gay- lord 1?. Case, 5 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 413, 5 Am. L. Rec. 494; Wilson t>. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Potter v. Hol- land, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,329, 4 Blatchf. 206, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Smith v. Mercer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,078, 5 Pa. L. J. 529. 19. Burdell v. Denig, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,142, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588; Meyer v. Bailey, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,516, 2 Ban. & A. 73, 8 Off. Gaz. 437. 20. Gottfried v. Miller, 104 U. S. 521, 26 L. ed. 851; Keene Mach. Co. v. Barratt, 100 Fed. 590, 40 C. C. A. 571; Curran v. Burd- sall, 20 Fed. 835; Faulks v. Kamp, 3 Fed. 898, 17 Blatchf. 432; Emmons v. Slaudin, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,470, 2 Ban. & A. 199, 9 Off. Gaz. 352. Compare Perry v. Corning, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,004, 7 Blatchf. 195. 21. Superior Drill Co. v. Ney Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 734; Jones v. Berger, 58 Fed. 1006; PATENTS [30 Cye.] 951 claims for past infringements, the assignee may sue therefor. 22 Mere intention, however, not signified in the assignment, to include therein claims for infringe- ments previously committed, will not suffice to invest the assignee with any title to those claims. 23 d. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (i) IN GENERAL. Covenants and conditions in an assignment do not prevent it from operating as an absolute assignment where they are conditions subsequent, sucli as a stipulation as to division of royalty or profits. 24 But conditions precedent must be performed before an assignment will become operative. 25 (n) REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONDITIONS (A) Rescission or Cancellation. For the non-payment of royalties or other non-performance of conditions, a for- feiture may be enforced ; but in the case of a condition subsequent, the title which had theretofore vested remains in the assignee until the forfeiture is enforced. 26 If it is so stipulated, however, the title will revert to the assignor by operation of law, upon the breach of a condition. 27 The general rules governing the rescission and cancellation of written instruments are applicable to contracts for assignment of patents. 28 A patentee may, by his acquiescence, estop himself to claim the cancellation of an assignment. 29 (B) Recovery of Damages. Either party may recover damages for a breach of a condition or covenant. 30 Emerson v. Hubbard, 34 Fed. 327; Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444; May v. Juneau County, 30 Fed. 241; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 18 Fed. 638, 21 Blatchf. 519; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,879, 7 Blatchf. 86. The original owner of a patent, who has as- signed it, may maintain an action for an in- fringement committed during the time of his ownership. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 515, 19 L. ed. 37. 22. May v. Saginaw County, 32 Fed. 629; May v. Logan County, 30 Fed. 250; Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 25 Fed. 270; Con- solidated Oil Well Packer Co. v. Eaton, 12 Fed. 865; Merriam v. Smith, 11 Fed. 588. 23. Emerson v. Hubbard, 34 Fed. 327. 24. Church v. Anti-Kalsomine Co., 138 Mich. 211, 101 N. W. 230; Ford v. Dyer, 148 Mo. 528, 49 S. W. 1091; Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697, 10 S. Ct. 378, 33 L. ed. 787 ; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L. ed. 888; Janney v. Pancoast International Ventilator Co., 122 Fed. 535 ; D. M. Sechler Carriage Co. v. Deere, etc., Co., 113 Fed. 285, 51 C. C. A. 242; Day v. Stellman, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,690, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 487; Cartwright 17. Amatt, 2 B. & P. 43. Conveyance on condition as creating 1 trust see Duff v. Gilliland, 139 Fed. 16, 71 C. C. A. 428. A clause appointing the assignee attorney of the patentee, with authority to use his name whenever they deem proper in the management of the business, does not re- strict the interest or power of the assignee. Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L, ed. 888. Particular assignments with conditions con- strued see Scheurle t\ Husbands, 65 N. J. L. 681, 48 Atl. 1118; Bell Tel. Co. v. Com., 2 Pa. Cas. 299, 3 Atl. 825; Tecktonius v. Scott, 110 Wis. 441, 86 N. W. 672; Holmes v. McGill, 108 Fed. 238, 47 C. C. A. 296; Bracher v. Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 921. 25. Thourot v. Holub, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 634, 80 N. Y. Suppl. 1083 ; Arnold Mono- phase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 148 Fed. 234; Grier v. Baynes, 49 Fed. 363; Hull v. Pitrat, 45 Fed. 94 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 650, 12 S. Ct. 986, 36 L. ed. 847]. 26. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Stanley Rule, etc., Co. v. Bailey, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,287, 3 Ban. & A. 297, 14 Blatchf. 510. Where the remedy at law is sufficient, a court of equity will not interfere. Osborne v. Jullion, 3 Drew. 596, 26 L. J. Ch. 6, 4 Wkly. Rep. 767, 61 Eng. Reprint 1031. 27. Pierpoint Boiler Co. v. Penn Iron, etc., Co., 75 Fed. 289. 28. See Morgan v. National Pump Co., 74 Mo. App. 155 (holding that mere allegations of insolvency, failure to pay royalty, and failure to perform conditions without allega- tion of fraud or offer to return consideration are insufficient to justify equitable interposi- tion in rescinding an assignment of a pat- ent) ; Dow v. Harkin, 67 N. H. 383, 29 Atl. 846; Andrews v. Fielding, 20 Fed. 123. 29. Duff 17. Gilliland, 139 Fed. 16, 71 C. C. A. 428 [reversing 135 Fed. 581]. 30. Georgia. Barrett v. Verdery, 93 Ga. 546, 21 S. E. 64; Hornsby v. Butts, 85 Ga. 694, 11 S. E. 846. Illinois. Lord v. Owen, 35 111. App. 382. Indiana. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co. v. Haber- korn, 15 Ind. App. 479, 44 N. E. 322. Massachusetts. Weed v. Draper, 104 Mass. 28. Missouri. Standard Fireproofing Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co., 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008. New Jersey. Johnson v. Johnson R. Signal Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 79, 40 Atl. 193. Neto York. Warth v. Liebovitz, 179 N. Y. [XI, A, 5, d, (H), (B)] 952 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS 6. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES 31 a. In General. The assignee acquires no other or greater rights than were possessed by the assignor and is bound by the legal consequences of the assignor's acts. 82 b. As to Each Other (i) IN GENERAL. In the absence of warranty equity can give no relief to the assignee of a patent found to be void unless fraud is shown. 33 To rescind a contract of sale of a patent right on the ground of false and fraudulent representations, such representations must have been of material facts, constituting an inducement to the contract, whereon the purchaser had a right to rely, and did rely, and was thereby misled to his injury. 34 Fraudulent representations, in order to afford a ground for relief, must be of facts then exist- ing or preexisting, as distinguished from an opinion, a promise or an assumed future fact. Furthermore these facts must be of a concrete character, as distin- guished from a truth or principle. 35 Representations by the seller of a patent that the same is valid and does not interfere with any prior patent must be regarded as matters of opinion, and not as statements of facts, 36 unless it appears that there was a prior patent covering the identical invention, and that the seller was aware thereof. 37 So a statement that letters patent are new and useful, if untrue, is not cause for avoiding a sale of the letters made in reliance on such statement. 38 Nor is a mere false assertion of value, when no warranty is intended, ground of relief to a purchaser, because the assertion is matter of opinion. 89 But a gross misrepresentation of the capacity of a machine and the success in selling and operating it, of which the purchaser was ignorant, has been held sufficient to warrant the rescission of a contract induced thereby. 40 (n) LIABILITY FOR, AND RECOVERY OF, CONSIDERATION.^ In the absence of fraud or warranty the assignee of a patent right cannot refuse to make the payments agreed upon merely because the patent is found to be invalid, 42 or 200, 71 N. E. 734; Kirschmann t?. Lediard, 61 Barb. 573; Brusie v. Peck, 16 N. Y. Suppl. 648 [reversed on other grounds in 135 N. Y. 622, 32 N. E. 76]. Texas. Clark t;. Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 41, 54 S. W. 392. Vermont. Vaughan v. Porter, 16 Vt. 266. 31. Assignment in trust see TBUSTS. 32. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. (U. S.) 202, 11 L. ed. 102; Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co. v. Deering, 66 Fed. 547 ; Grier r. Baynes, 46 Fed. 523; Pennington v. Hunt, 20 Fed. 195; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Griesche, 16 Fed. 669, 5 McCrary 246. Assignee takes only what assignor owned. Coleman v. Ryan, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 715, 68 N. Y. Suppl. 253; Abbett v. Zusi, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 7, 5 Ban. & A. 38. See also supra, XI, A, 5, c, (i). 33. Fowler v. Mallory, 53 Conn. 420, 3 Atl. 560; Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 19 111. App. 375 [affirmed in 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 881; Wade v. Ringo, 122 Mo. 322, 25 S. W. 901; Cansler v. Eaton, 55 N. C. 499; Hiatt v. Twomey, 21 N. C. 315. 34. Hull 17. Fields, 76 Va. 594. 35. Wade v. Ringo, 122 Mo. 322, 25 S. W. 901. 36. Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 88 [affirming 19 111. App. 3751. 37. Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. 774. 38. Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 88 [affirming 19 111. App. 375]. 39. Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, . 7 N. E. 88 [affirming 19 111. App. 375]; [XI, A, 6, a] Rockafellow v. Baker, 41 Pa. St. 319, 80 Am. Dec. 624. 40. Pierce v. Wilson, 34 Ala. 596. 41. See COMMERCIAL PAPER, 7 Cyc. 694; CONTRACTS, 9 Cyc. 369. 42. Connecticut. Fowler v. Mallory, 53 Conn. 420, 3 Atl. 560. Illinois. Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 19 111. App. 375 [affirmed in 119 111. 567]. Indiana. Detrick v. McGlone, 46 Ind. 291. Maryland. Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Ex- cavating Apparatus Co., 65 Md. 34, 3 Atl. 676, 57 Am. Rep. 301. Massachusetts. Gilmore v. Aiken, 118 Mass. 94. Minnesota. Clark v. Smith, 21 Minn. 539. New York. McGill v. Holmes, 108 N. Y. 647, 61 N. E. 1131. North Carolina. Cansler v. Eaton, 55 N. C. 499; Hiatt v. Twomey, 21 N. C. 315. United States. Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Far- row, 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317; Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. 109, 13 L. ed. 66; Milligan v. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. 570. In the absence of warranty invalidity is no defense. Saxton v. Dodge, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 84 ; Smith v. Neale, 2 C. B. N. S. 67, 3 Jur. N. S. 516, 26 L. J. C. P. 143, 4 Wkly. Rep. 563, 89 E. C. L. 67; Hall v. Conder, 2 C. B. N. S. 22, 3 Jur. N. S. 366, 26 L. J. C. P. 138, 89 E. C. L. 22 [affirmed in 2 C. B. N. S. 53, 3 Jur. N. S. 963, 26 L. J. C. P. 288, 5 Wkly. Rep. 742, 89 E. C. L. 53] ; Lawes v. Purser, 6 E. & B. 930, 3 Jur. N. S. 182, 26 L. J. Q. B. 25, 5 Wkly. Rep. 43, 88 E. C. L. 930; Smith PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 953 because the patented device infringes another patent ; 43 but he may refuse where there is a total failure of consideration flowing from the assignor, as where the patented device is inoperative or useless. 44 But in order to sustain the defense of want of consideration it is not enough that the practical utility of the patent be limited, or that the manufactured article cannot be manufactured and sold at a profit, if it be capable of use. 45 A breach of a warranty given on the sale of a patent right is equivalent to a failure of consideration and furnishes a good defense to an action for the price. 46 (in) RECOVERY BACK OF CONSIDERATION BY ASSIGNEE. Since no warranty is implied in the sale of a patent right the purchaser of such a right cannot, in the absence of fraud, and without an express covenant, recover of his vendor the price paid for it, because it is found to be invalid. 47 He may, however, recover back the purchase-money if the patent right was not that which he agreed to buy, unless he has accepted a deed describing the patent. 48 If a patentee elects to rescind a contract of sale for non-payment of the whole purchase-price the vendee is entitled to recover back the amount paid on the contract. 49 e. As to Third Parties. 50 An assignee of a patent takes the title subject to the equities of other parties who have acquired rights therein, of which he had notice, express or implied. 51 It has been held, however, that in the absence of express v. Buckingham, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 819, 18 Wkly. Rep. 314; Hayne v. Maltby, 3 T. R. 438; Liardet v. Hammond Electric Light, etc., Co., 31 Wkly. Rep. 710; Vermilyea v. Canniff, 12 Ont. 164; Owens v. Taylor, 29 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 210. 43. Fowler v. Mallory, 53 Conn. 420, 3 Atl. 560; Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Harney, 155 Mass. 507, 29 N. E. 1148; Home v. Hoyle, 27 Fed. 216. Compare Herzog v. Heyman, 151 N. Y. 587, 45 N. E. 1127, 56 Am. St. Rep. 646. Proof that a patent is void for infringe- ment is not admissible in a suit upon a note given for its conveyance, unless that fact has been determined by a competent court. Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 430. 44. Snyder t?. Kurtz, 61 Iowa 593, 16 N. W. 722; Scott v. Sweet, 2 Greene (Iowa) 224; Groff v. Hansel, 33 Md. 161; McDougall v. Fogg, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 387; Herzog v. Heyman, 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 27, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 74; Clough v. Patrick, 37 Vt. 421; Cragin v. Fowler, 34 Vt. 326, 80 Am. Dec. 680. Question of utility is for jury. Rowe v. Blanchard, 18 Wis. 441, 86 Am. Dec. 783. 45. Indiana. Hunter v. McLaughlin, 43 Ind. 38. Maine. Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 430. Massachusetts. Howe v. Richards, 102 Mass. 64. Minnesota. Van Norman v. Barbeau, 54 Minn. 388, 55 N. W. 1112. North Carolina. Fair v. Shelton, 128 N. C. 105, 38 S. E. 290. Evidence of slight value inadmissible see Vaughan v. Porter, 16 Vt. 266. 46. Hawes v. Twogood, 12 Iowa 582. 47. Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 65 Md. 34, 3 Atl. 676, 57 Am. Rep. 301 ; Foss v. Richardson, 15 Gray (Mass.) 303; Hiatt v. Twomey, 21 N. C. 315. 48. Foss I?. Richardson, 15 Gray (Mass.) 303. 49. Bellis v. Kenwood, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 78. 50. Patent rights as subject to creditors' suits see CEEDITORS' SUITS, 12 Cyc. 31. Patent rights as subject to execution see EXECUTIONS, 17 Cyc. 943. Who entitled to sue infringers see infra, XIII, C, 7, a, b. 51. Des Moines Ins. Co. v. Mclntire, 99 Iowa 50, 68 N. W. 565; New York Phono- graph Co. v. Edison, 136 Fed. 600 [affirmed in 144 Fed. 404, 75 C. C. A. 382] ; Bradford Belting Co. v. Kisinger-Ison Co., 113 Fed. 811, 51 C. C. A. 483; Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Chicago Brake, etc., Co., 85 Fed. 786; Car- roll v. Goldschmidt, 83 Fed. 508, 27 C. C. A. 566; Sheldon Axle Co. v. Standard Axle Works, 37 Fed. 789, 3 L. R. A. 656 ; Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 27 Fed. 699; Hap- good v. Rosenstock, 23 Fed. 86, 23 Blatchf. 95; Gottfried v. Miller, 10 Fed. 471; Cham- bers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575. An assignee of a patent is chargeable with notice of every fact in relation to an out- standing interest the possible existence of which is indicated by the recitals of the as- signment. Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. v. White- hurst, 72 Fed. 496, 19 C. C. A. 130; Water- man v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371; Prime v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,421, 4 Ban. & A. 379, 16 Blatchf. 453. Notice of oral contract. A purchaser of a patent with notice of a prior oral contract to convey the patent to another will be treated as a trustee for such prior contracting party, and decreed to convey to him. Whitney v. Burr, 115 111. 289, 3 N. E. 434. Not subject to equities of which he had no notice. Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734 [af- firming 42 Fed. 49] ; Davis, etc., Temperature Controlling Co. v. Tagliabue, 150 Fed. 372 [reversed on other grounds in 159 Fed. 712] ; Faulkner v. Empire State Nail Co., 67 Fed. 913, 15 C. C. A. 69 [affirming 55 Fed. 819]. [XI, A, 6, e] 954 [30 Cye.] PATENTS contract he assumes no affirmative obligation to make good the previous contracts of his assignor. 52 7. TRANSFER BY SUCCESSION OR INHERITANCE. 53 Upon the death of the patentee the patent vests in the administrator or executor and not in the heirs. 54 B. Licenses and Contracts 55 !. LICENSES a. In General. A license is any right to make, use, or sell the patented invention which is less than an undi- vided part interest in the patent itself. 56 A license operates only as a waiver of the monopoly as to the licensee, and estops the licensor from exercising his pro- hibitory powers in derogation of the privileges conferred by him upon the licensee. 57 It gives no right to bring suit upon the patent and has been defined as the right not to be sued. 58 b. Requisites and Validity (i) IN GENERAL. A license may be express or implied. An express license may be oral or in writing. 59 If in writing no par- ticular form of words is necessary. Anything which confers upon another the right to do an act which otherwise would be illegal is sufficient. 60 Its validity is determined by the same principles that apply to other contracts. 61 A license to 52. Courier v. Crescent Sewing Mach. Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 413, 45 Atl. 609; Bradford Belt- ing Co. v. Kisinger-Ison Co., 113 Fed. 811, 51 C. C. A. 483 ; Mueller v. Mueller, 95 Fed. 155, 37 C. C. A. 392. 53. Power of administrator to assign pat- ent see supra, XI, A, 1, b, (i). 54. Bradley v. Dull, 19 Fed. 913; Shaw Relief Valve Co. v. New Bedford, 19 Fed. 753 ; Hodge v. North Missouri R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,561, 1 Dill. 104, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 161. See also supra, IV, F; I, C, 1. Surviving partner takes patent. Smith r. London, etc., R. Co., 2 E. & B. 69, 17 Jur. 1071, 75 E. C. L. 69. 55. Regulation of dealings in patent rights and patented articles see infra, XII. Specific performance of agreements for li- censes see SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 56. Eclipse Wind Engine Co. v. Zimmer- man Mfg. Co., 16 Ind. App. 496, 44 N. E. 1115; Waterman v. MacKenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Oliver v. Rum- ford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75, 3 S. Ct. 61, 27 L. ed. 864; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Rice v. Boss, 46 Fed. 195; Theberath v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 143; Potter V. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,329, 4 Blatchf. 206, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Sanford v. Messer, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,314, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411, Holmes 149, 2 Off. Gaz. 470. And see 35 Viet. c. 26, 22. The separate rights of making, using, or selling may be separately conveyed. Water- man v. MacKenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923 ; Oliver v. Rumford Chemi- cal Works, 109 U. S. 75, 3 S. Ct. 61, 27 L. ed. 862; Hayward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672, 1 S. Ct. 544, 27 L. ed. 271 ; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; Gayler V. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504. Particular transfers held to constitute li- censes see Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co. i>. Haber- korn, 15 Ind. App. 479, 44 N. E. 322 ; Stand- ard Button Fastening Co. v. Ellis, 159 Mass. 448, 54 N. E. 682; Hurd v. Gere, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 235 ; Topliff v. Topliff, 122 U. S. 121, 7 S. Ct. 1057, 30 L. ed. [XI, A, 6, e] 1110; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Atwood Lock Co. v. Yale, etc., Mfg. Co., 115 Fed. 332; Rice v. Boss, 46 Fed. 195; Hatfield v. Smith, 44 Fed. 355; Ingalls V. Tice, 14 Fed. 297; Gamewell Fire- Alarm Tel. Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 Fed. 255; Nellis v. Pennock Mfg. Co., 13 Fed. 451; Armstrong v. Hanlenbeck, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 544, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 43; Brooks v. Byam, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,948, 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. 161, 2 Story 525 ; Farrington V. Gregory, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,688, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Hussey v. Whitely, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,950, 1 Bond 407, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; Sanford v. Messer, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,314, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411, Holmes 149, 2 Off. Gaz. 470; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,195, 1 Blatchf. 467, Fish. Pat. Rep. 290. 57. Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 171; Bennett v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 110 N. Y. App. Div. 443, 96 N. Y. Suppl. 968. 58. Hawks v. Swett, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 146; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 171 [revers- ing 65 Fed. 619] ; Heap v. Hartley, 42 Ch. D. 461, 58 L. J. Ch. 790, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 538, 38 Wkly. Rep. 136 ; Renard v. Levinstein, 2 Hem. & M. 628, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 766, 5 New Rep. 301, 13 Wkly. Rep. 382, 71 Eng. Reprint 607. 59. Buss v. Putney, 38 N. H. 44; Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734; Cook v. Sterling Electric Co., 150 Fed. 766, 80 C. C. A. 502 [affirming 118 Fed. 45] ; Jones V. Berger, 58 Fed. 1006; Baldwin v. Sibley, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 805, 1 Cliff. 150; Protheroe v. May, 9 L. J. Exch. 121, 5 M. & W. 675; Roden v. London Small Arms Co., 46 L. J. Q. B. 213, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 305, 25 Wkly. Rep. 269. 60. A covenant not to sue for future in- fringements is in substance and effect a li- cense. Seibert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Detroit Lubricator Co.,' 34 Fed. 216; Colgate v. Western Electric Mfg. Co., 28 Fed. 146. 61. Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 955 use an invention may be given before it is patented, 62 and if without restrictions, and if acted on by applying the invention to machines or mechanisms constructed before the granting of the patent, will protect the licensee in its use afterward. 68 It must conform to the requirements of state laws, 64 and not be in restraint of trade. 65 (n) IMPLIED LICENSE (A) In General. The conduct of the owner of the patent may be such as to create an implied license to make, use, or sell the inven- tion. 67 Mere acquiescence, if founded on a valuable consideration, is sufficient of itself to amount to a license. 68 (B) from Sale of Patented Article. The sale of a patented article by one entitled to sell it carries with it the right to use the particular article anywhere desired, and to sell it to others unless there was an agreement to the contrary when the sale was made. By virtue of the contract of sale and the unconditional delivery the article sold is released from the monopoly. 69 The sale of a patented article without condition or restriction carries with it dominion over the article so sold, and the purchaser may use it in any manner and for any purpose, 70 so long as such use does not violate the vendor's exclusive property in another invention. 71 v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 171. 62. Burton v. Burton Stock-Car Co., 171 Mass. 437, 50 N. E. 1029; Bezer v. Hall Signal Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 203 ; Brush Electric Co. v. California Electric Light Co., 52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368. 63. Burton v. Burton Stock-Car Co., 17 L Mass. 437, 50 N. E. 1029. 64. Sandage v. Studabaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 142 Ind. 148, 41 N. E. 380, 51 Am. St. Rep. 165, 34 L. R. A. 363; Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 Pac. 76, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327, 41 L. R. A. 548. See also infra, XII, B. 65. Exclusive license not illegal. An agree- ment by a patentee to allow an association and its members the exclusive use and sale of inventions patented by him is not illegal as being in restraint of trade. Good v. Daland, 121 N. Y. 1, 24 N. E. 15. But a public corporation cannot refuse to give equal service to all merely because operating under a patent. Commercial Union Tel. Co. v. New England Tel., etc., Co., 61 Vt. 241, 17 Atl. 1071, 15 Am. St. Rep. 893, 5 L. R. A. 161. , 66. Implied from relation of employer and employee see supra, IV, C. 67. Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917, 59 Am. Rep. 321; O'Rourke Engineering Constr. Co. v. McMullen, 150 Fed. 338; Mueller v. Mueller, 95 Fed. 155, 37 C. C. A. 392 ; Anderson v. Eiler, 50 Fed. 775, 1 C. C. A. 659; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Puster, 42 Fed. 54; Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,516, 1 Cliff. 288; Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380; Magoun v. New England Glass Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,960, 3 Ban. & A. 114; McKeever v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 396;' In- candescent Gas Light Co. v. New Incandescent Gas Lighting Co., 76 L. T. Rep. N. S. 47; Kenny's Patent Button-holeing Co. v. Somer- vell, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 878, 26 Wkly. Rep. 786. Evidence held insufficient to show implied license see Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 L. ed. 325; Keller v. Stolzen- bach, 20 Fed. 47. 68. Seibert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Detroit Lubricator Co., 34 Fed. 216; Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,516, 1 Cliff. 288. 69. Pratt v. Marean, 25 111. App. 516; Howe v. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.) 18; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, 14 S. Ct. 627, 38 L. ed. 500; Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U. S. 355, 13 S. Ct. 879, 37 L. ed. 766; Waterman v. MacKenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923 ;' Newton v. McGuire, 97 Fed. 614; Hanifen v. Lupton, 95 Fed. 465; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Goelet, 65 Fed. 612; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Blooming- dale, 65 Fed. 212; Edison Electric Light Co'. v. Citizens' Electric Light, etc., Co., 64 Fed. 491; Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656; Ala- bastine Co. v. Richardson, 26 Fed. 620 ; Roose- velt v. Western Electric Co., 20 Fed. 724; Porter Needle Co. v. National Needle Co., 17 Fed. 536; Detweiler v. Voege, 8 Fed. 600, 19 Blatchf. 482; Adams v. Burks, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 50, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 392, Holmes 40, 1 Off. Gaz. 282 [affirmed in 17 Wall. 453, 21 L. ed. 700] ; American Cotton-Tie Co. v. Sim- mons, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 293, 3 Ban. & A. 320, 13 Off. Gaz. 967 [reversed on other grounds in 106 U. S. 89, 1 S. Ct. 52, 27 L. ed. 79] ; Black v. Hubbard, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,460, 3 Ban. & A. 39, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; Brooks v. Stolley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,963, Fish. Pat. Rep. 137, 4 McLean 275; Farrington v. Gregory, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,688, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Goodyear v. Beverly Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,557, 1 Cliff. 348; McKay v. Wooster, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,847, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 375, 2 Sawy. 373, 3 Off. Gaz. 441. Sale by patentee's agent abroad see Betts v. Willniott, L. R. 6 Ch. 239, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 188, 19 Wkly. Rep. 369. 70. George Frost Co. v. Kora Co., 136 Fed. 487 [affirmed in 140 Fed. 987, 71 C. C. A. 19] ; Goodyear v. Beverly Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,557, 1 Cliff. 348. 71. Roosevelt v. Western Electric Co., 20 Fed. 724. [XI, B, 1, b, (n), (B)] 956 [30 Cye.] PATENTS A sale, in order to have this effect, however, must be by one entitled to sell. 72 The purchaser has no right to make another machine or structure like it, nor to buy one from an inf ringer. 73 e. Recording. 74 The law does not require that a license be recorded in the patent office even as against subsequent purchasers. 75 d. Construction and Operation (i) IN GENERAL. Licenses are to be con- strued like other contracts, 76 according to the intention of the parties. 77 If the license is in writing, all previous parol agreements are merged therein, 78 and oral evidence is not admissible to explain its provisions, 79 unless it is capable of two interpretations and a doubt exists as to its true meaning. 80 Several licenses constituting one transaction may be construed together. 81 (n) EIGHTS AND INTERESTS CONVEYED (A) In General. The rights con- ferred by a license must be taken subject to the conditions therein made by the licensor. 82 The licensee has, however, the right to do those things which are necessary to the enjoyment of his license, such as to make a machine which he has been licensed to use. 83 Conversely a conveyance of the right to make and 72. Brooks v. Stolley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,963, Fish. Pat. Rep. 137, 4 McLean 275; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Nixon, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,391, 2 Ban. & A. 244, 1 Flipp. 491, 9 Off. Gaz. 691. 73. Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed, 322; Brown v. Puget Sound Reduction Co., 1 10 Fed. 383 ; Boston v. Allen, 91 Fed. 248, 33 C. C. A. 485 ; Davis v. Chesa- peake, etc., Co., 77 Fed. 895; Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Gibson, 56 Fed. 143, 5 C. C. A. 451; Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Cartridge Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,369, 2 Ban. & A. 593, 11 Off. Gaz. 1113. A purchaser's right to use the patent is a mere incident to his ownership of the particu- lar machine or structure sold to him by the patentee, and when it is worn out or de- stroyed the right to use the invention ceases. Brown v. Puget Sound Reduction Co., 110 Fed. 383. 74. Of assignment see supra, XI, A, 4. 75. Peoria Malting Co. v. Davenport Grain, etc., Co., 68 111. App. 104; Stevens v. Head, 9 Vt. 174, 31 Am. Dec. 617; Jones v. Berger, 58 Fed. 1006; Brooks v. Byam, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,948, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 161, 2 Story 525; Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575; Hamilton v. Kingsbury, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,985, 4 Ban. & A. 615, 17 Blatchf. 264, 17 Off. Gaz. 147. English practice. Record is unnecessary unless royalty fixed. In re Fletcher, 62 L. J. Ch. 938, 69 L. T. Rep. N. S. 129, 3 Reports 626. 76. Heaton-Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 77. Laver v. Dennett, 109 U. S. 90, 3 S. Ct. 73, 27 L. ed. 867; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. Particular licenses construed. Hegelein v. Anthony, 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 616, 68 N. Y. Strppl. 2; Leonard v. Crocker Wheeler Co., 125 Fed. 375 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 342, 60 C. C. A. 320]; Western [XI, B, 1, b, (II), (B)] Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 105 Fed. 684. 78. Evory v. Candee, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,583, 4 Ban. & A. 545, 17 Blatchf. 200. 79. McAleer v. U. S., 150 U. S. 424, 14 S. Ct. 160, 37 L. ed. 1130; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,195, 1 Blatchf. 467, Fish. Pat. Rep. 290. 80. Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 105 Fed. 684 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 342, 60 C. C. A. 220]. 81. Hammond v. Mason, etc., Organ Co., 92 U. S. 724, 23 L. ed. 767. 82. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Pelzer v. Binghamton, 95 Fed. 823, 37 C. C. A. 288; Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,558, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Grossman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,321, 3 Ban. & A. 281, 4 Cliff. 568; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. See also infra, XI, B, 1, d, (n), (B). English and Canadian practice. Licensee abroad cannot use or sell in England Societe Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v. Telghman's Patent Sand Blast Co., 25 Ch. D. 1, 53 L. J. Ch. 1, 49 L. T. Rep. N. S. 451,^ 32 Wkly. Rep. 71. Licensee cannot prevent grant of license to others. Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co., 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 625. 83. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsu- lar Light, etc., Co., 95 Fed. 669 [affirmed in 101 Fed. 831, 43 C. C. A. 479] ; Illingworth v. Spaulding, 43 Fed. 827 ; Hamilton v. Kings- bury, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,984, 3 Ban. & A. 346, 15 Blatchf. 64, 14 Off. Gaz. 448; Steam Stonecutter Co. . Shortsleeves, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,334> 4 Ban. & A. 364, 16 Blatchf. 381; Woodworth v. Curtis, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,013, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 603, 2 Woodb. & M. 524; MacLaughlin v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 2 Ont. L. Rep. 190. English and Canadian practice. License to manufacture gives right to use and sell. Thomas v. Hunt, 17 C. B. N. S. 183, 112 E. C. L. 183. Need not use in patented form. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 957 sell a patented article includes the right to use it. 84 So one licensed to make and use may. add improvements. 85 But the right to use a composition does not carry the right to use the process. 86 (B) Place For Exercise of License (1) EXPRESS LICENSE. A license to use a patented device in a particular territory, 87 or at a particular establishment, 88 or on a particular railroad, 89 is binding upon the licensee and its use elsewhere is unlawful. But a license to use and sell a machine within a specified territory authorizes the licensee to sell the product of the machine out of the said ter- ritory. 90 And a license to use a patented device in a particular shop does not prevent its manufacture elsewhere. 91 (2) IMPLIED LICENSE. It is well settled that the sale of a patented article by one authorized to sell it carries the right to use it anywhere, 92 even in the terri- tory of another assignee or licensee. 93 The right to sell, as distinguished from the right to use, in the territory of another, was formerly denied ; 94 but the recent decisions have overruled this doctrine, holding that the sale of patented articles by the patentee or a territorial assignee confers upon the purchasers of such articles the right to carry the same into the territory of another assignee, and there sell them, in the usual course of trade, without the consent or license of the latter assignee. 95 (c) Duration of License 96 (1) IN GENERAL. A license not expressly lim- ited in duration continues u'ntil the patent expires or the license is forfeited through some act of the licensee, if not terminated by mutual consent. 97 How- MacLaughlin v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 3 Ont. L. Rep. 706. 84. Turnbull v. Weir Plow Co., 14 Fed. 108, 9 Biss. 334. 85. Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; MacLaughlin v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 3 Ont. L. Rep. 706. 86. United Nickel Co. v. California Electri- cal Works, 25 Fed. 475. 87. Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 349; Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575; Wicke v. Kleinknecht, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,608, 1 Ban. & A. 608, 7 Off. Gaz. 1098 ; Woodworth v. Cook, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,011, 2 Blatchf. 151, Fish. Pat. Rep. 423. 88. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566. A license to use an invention to the ca- pacity of a factory confers the right to use the invention in a subsequent addition to the factory, where the total use does not exceed the original capacity. England v. Thompson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,487, 3 Cliff. 271. A lease of premises and machinery by which a patented process is carried on is not a general license, but gives the licensee a right to use such process on the leased prem- ises only. Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. 89. A license to a railroad company extends no further than the road in use or which it was authorized to construct at the date of the license. Emigh v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,448, 1 Biss. 400, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, holding that it cannot use the patent on lines afterward built or leased. A license to use a patented brake on any and all cars belonging to the licensed company covers the use of brakes on trucks and running gear belonging to the company,, although the superstructure belongs to another. Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410. But a license to use a patented invention upon the locomotives used by a railroad company on its road or on any road or roadg low owned or that may hereafter be owned or operated by said company embraces not only locomo- tives in use at the date of the license upon roads then owned and operated by the com- pany, but also such other locomotives as it might thereafter use and other roads which it might thereafter operate. Matthew v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 8 Fed. 45. 90. Simpson v. Wilson, 4 How. (U. S.) 709, 11 L. ed. 1169. 91. Wood v. Wells, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,967, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382. 92. Robbie v. Jennison, 149 U. S. 355, 13 S. Ct. 879, 37 L. ed. 766; Adams v. Burks, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 21 L. ed. 700; Edison Elec- tric Light Co. v. Goelet, 65 Fed. 613. 93. Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U. S. 355, 13 S. Ct. 879, 37 L. ed. 766; Adams v. Burks, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 21 L. ed. 700. 94. California Electrical Works v. Finck, 47 Fed. 583; Sheldon Axle Co. v. Standard Axle Works, . 37 Fed. 789, 3 L. R. A. 656 ; Hatch v. Adams, 22 Fed. 434. 95. Keeler v. Standard Folding-Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659, 15 S. Ct. 738, 39 L. ed. 848 [re- versing 37 Fed. 693, 41 Fed. 51] ; Jackson v. Vaughan, 73 Fed. 837. 96. Revocation or other termination see in- fra, XI, B, 1, g. 97. St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 11 S. Ct. 803, 35 L. ed. 404; American St. Car Advertising Co. v. Jones, 122 Fed. 803 [reversed on other grounds in 142 Fed. 974, 74 C. C. A. 236] ; Edison Elec- tric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, etc., Co., 95 Fed. 669 ; McKay v. Mace, 23 Fed. 76 ; [XI. B, 1, d, (II), (C), (1)] 958 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS ever an express stipulation in the contract as to the duration of the license will of course control. 98 (2) IN EXTENDED TERM. The presumption of law in regard to every license under a patent is that the parties deal in regard only to the term existing when the license is given, unless an express provision is inserted looking to a further interest ; and unless there be such a stipulation, showing that the parties con- templated an extension, the provisions of the license will be construed as relating to the then existing term only." There is, however, a distinction between the grant of the right to make and vend the patented article, and the grant of the right to use it. Purchasers of the exclusive privilege of making or vending the patented article hold the whole or a portion of the franchise which the patent secures, depending upon the nature of the conveyance, and the interest which the purchaser acquires at the time limited for its continuance by the law which created the franchise, unless it is expressly stipulated to the contrary. 1 But the purchaser of the implement or machine for the purpose of using it in the ordinary pursuits of life stands on different grounds. Where such a sale is absolute, and without any conditions, the rule is well settled that the purchaser may continue to use the implement or machine until it is worn out in spite of any and every extension subsequently obtained by the patentee or his assigns. 2 But a licensee who, having machines in use at the end of an original term of a patent, takes a license for another year under the extended term, waives any rights which he had to use such machines when the first term ended. 3 If before the extension the right to use was limited to a particular district or to a specified number of machines, it continues during the extension subject to the same limitations. 4 (in) COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS. The rights of the licensee may be limited by special covenants and conditions, 5 and a violation of those conditions make Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 410. 98. Nichols v. Murphy, 136 111. 380, 26 N. E. 509; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; Sherborne v. Wilcox, etc., Sewing-mach. Co., 105 Fed. 970. 99. New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison, 136 Fed. 600 [affirmed in 144 Fed. 404, 75 G. G. A. 382] ; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 410; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,560, 6 Blatchf. 165. Construction of particular stipulations. A stipulation in a license that it shall con- tinue " during the term for which said let- ters patent are or may be granted " ( Hodge f. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410), or " for the whole term of the patent which may be granted " ( Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385), does not authorize the use of the invention during the extended term. 1. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. V. Nixon, 105 U. S. 766, 26 L. ed. 959; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 340, 17 L. ed. 581; Bloomer v. Stolley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,559, Fish. Pat. Rep. 376, 5 McLean 158; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. The right to use a patented process during [XI. B. 1. d. (n), (c), (1)] the original term of the patent does not au- thorize the use of it after the patent is ex- tended. Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385. 2. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Nixon, 105 U. S. 766, 26 L. ed. 959; Mitchell v. Haw- ley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 21 L. ed. 322; Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 340, 17 L. ed. 581; Chaff ee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 How. (U. S.) 217, 16 L. ed. 240; Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. (U. S.) 539, 14 L. ed. 532; Blanchard v. Whitney, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,519, 3 Blatchf. 307; Farrington v. Gregory, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,688, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410; May v. Chaffee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,332, 2 Dill. 385, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 160; Spaulding v. Page, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,219, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Sawy. 702; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,465, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50, 2 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 385; Woodworth v. Curtis, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,013, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 603, 2 Woodb. & M. 524; Wooster v. Sidenberg, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18.039, 2 Ban. & A. 91, 13 Blatchf. 88, 10 Off. Gaz. 244. 3. Wooster v. Taylor, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18.040, 1 Ban. & A. 594, 12 Blatchf. 384, 8 Off. Gaz. 644. 4. Day v. Union India-Rubber Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,691, 3 Blatchf. 488 [affirmed in 20 How. 216, 15 L. ed. 833]. 5. Whitson v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565; Garst v. Harris, 177 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 959 him an infringer of the patent. 6 A party selling patented machines may impose any conditions desired upon the use or further sale of those machines, and a pur- chaser with notice is bound by those conditions. 7 But a purchaser without notice of any private agreements between the patentee and his licensee is not bound thereby. 8 e. Rights, Remedies, and Liabilities 9 (i) IN GENERAL. The rights and lia- bilities of the parties arise from the license contract and are to be determined from its terms and conditions. 10 Where a licensee violates his express covenants or repudiates the license, the licensor may sue either for breach of the agreement or for infringement. 11 Where the licensee has exclusive right within certain terri- tory the patentee cannot invade that right and the licensee may maintain suit against him for infringement. 12 (n) ENJOINING USE OF INVENTION. A provisional injunction will be granted against a licensee to restrain his use of a patented machine in violation of restric- tions contained in the license. 13 But such an injunction will be refused where it appears that the licensee violated the restrictions under a misapprehension of his rights, and had discontinued the violation. 14 So where a licensee undertakes to use a patent without paying the license-fee, the use will be enjoined whether or not the license becomes voidable at law. 15 The exercise of a license to build a cer- Mass. 72, 58 N. E r 174; Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 349; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 S. Ct. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058; National Phonograph Co. v. Schlegel, 128 Fed. 733, 64 C. C. A. 594; Victor Talk- ing Mach. Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58 ; Edison Phonograph Co. v. Pike, 116 Fed. 863; Cortelyou v. Lowe, 111 Fed. 1005, 49 C. C. A. 671; Edison Phonograph Co. v. Kaufmann, 105 Fed. 960; Dickerson v. Tinling, 84 Fed. 192, 28 C. C. A. 139; Heaton- Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Southern Wire Co., 37 Fed. 428; Brooks v. Stolley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,962, 3 McLean 523, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 281; Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Bradley Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,015, 1 Ban. & A. 330, 12 Blatchf. 202; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,567; Wood v. Wells, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,967, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382; Woodworth v. Cook, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,011, 2 Blatchf. 151, Fish. Pat. Rep. 423. An agreement to use only the patented form is not contrary to public policy. Jones v. Lees, 1 H. & N. 189, 2 Jur. N. S. 645, 26 L. J. Exch. 9. 6. Cortelyou v. Johnson, 138 Fed. 110 [reversed in 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455, and later decision affirmed in 207 U. S. 196, 28 S. Ct. 105, on the ground that there was no sufficient proof of notice of restrictions on sale] ; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58; Edison Phono- graph Co. v. The Pike, 116 Fed. 863; Edison Phonograph Co. v. Kaufmann, 105 Fed. 960; Tubular Rivet, etc., Co. v. O'Brien, 93 Fed. 200; Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575. 7. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58; Edison Phono- graph Co. v. Pike, 116 Fed. 863; Edison Phonograph Co. v. Kaufmann, 105 Fed. 960; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Porter Needle Co. v. National Needle Co., 17 Fed. 536; American Cotton-Tie Supply Co. v. Bullard, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 294, 4 Ban. & A. 520, 17 Blatchf. 160, 9 Reporter 70, 17 Off. Gaz. 389; Wilson v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833, 1 Blatchf. 536, 2 Fish. Pat. Rep. 361; British' Muto- scope, etc., Co. v. Homer, [1901] 1 Ch. 671, 70 L. J. Ch. 279, 84 L. T. Rep. N. S. 26, 49 Wkly. Rep. 277. Notice of conditions printed and posted upon each machine is binding upon pur- chasers. Cortelyou v. Johnson, 138 Fed. 110 [reversed in 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455 (see same case, 207 U. S. 196, 28 St. Ct. 105)]; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728. 8. Washing Mach. Co. v. Earle, 29 Fed. "Cas. No. 17,219, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 203, 3 Wall. Jr. 320. 9. Recovery of royalties see infra, XI, B, 3. Revocation of license see infra, XI, B, 1, g. 10. See supra, XI, B, 1, d, (in). 11. Cohn v. National Rubber Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,968, 6 Ban. & A. 568, 15 Off. Gaz. 829; England v. Thompson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,487, 3 Cliff. 271; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,949, 2 Ban. & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 151, 8 Off. Gaz. 773. 12. Whitson v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565; Waterman v. McKenzie, 138 U. S. 252, US. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141. 13. Wilson v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833, 1 Blatchf. 536, Fish. Pat. Rep. 361. 14. Wilson v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833, 1 Blatchf. 536, Fish. Pat. Rep. 361. 15. Day v. Hartshorn, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,683, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 32; Woodworth v. >Veed, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022, 1 Blatchf. 165, Fish. Pat. Rep. 108. [XI, B, 1, 6, (II)] 960 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS tain number of patented machines will not be restrained until such number of machines has been completed. 16 A bill by a licensee to enjoin the licensor from manufacturing the goods contrary to his agreement cannot be maintained where it appears that the licensee himself has ceased to manufacture any goods under the license. 17 (in) LIABILITY FOR, AND RECOVERY OF, CONSIDERATION FOR LICENSE. The grant of a license to make, use, or sell a patented article is a sufficient consid- eration to support a promise to pay the price of such license if the patent is valid, although it may not be a profitable one. 19 Where the compensation for the use of the patent is not fixed by the con tract, and where there is no established license-fee, the licensor is entitled to the reasonable value of such use. 20 f. Assignments and Sublieenses (i) IN GENERAL. Generally a license by a patentee is personal to the licensee, and not transferable. 21 In order to give the quality of assignability to a mere license it must contain express words to that effect, must run to the licensee and his assigns, or by other equivalent language indicate the intention to make the privilege transmissible by the licensee. 22 A licensee cannot apportion his license by assignment, unless a manifest intent to confer such a right appears in the contract of license ; ^ and such intent cannot be inferred merely from the grant to him and his u assigns." ** But where such a license runs to the executors and administrators of the licensees as well as to their assigns, it is apportionable and divisible by assignment, and may be trans- ferred in severalty by one of the licensees. 25 (n) ASSENT TO OR RECOGNITION OF ASSIGNMENT BY LICENSOR. A continu- ing; assignable quality may be given to a licensee to use a patented invention 16. Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. 702. ' 17. Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Westlake, 53 Fed. 588. 18. Recovery of royalties see infra, XI, B, 3. 19. Elmer v. Fennel, 40 Me. 430; Wilson v. Hentges, 26 Minn. 288, 3 N. W. 338 ; Mont- gomery 17. Waterbury, 2 Misc. (N. Y.) 145, 21 N. Y. Suppl. 631 [affirmed in 142 N. Y. 652, 37 N. E. 569] ; Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 162. Want of consideration. The utter worth- lessness of a patent right is a perfect de- fense to a suit on a note given by a licensee (Clough v. Patrick, 37 Vt. 421) ; and it is sufficient to sustain a plea of want of con- sideration to show that no patent had ever issued for the article licensed to be made and sold (Brown v. Wright, 17 Ark. 9), or that the patent issued was void (Harlow v. Put- nam, 124 Mass. 553). 20. Griffin v. White, 142 N. Y. 539, 37 N. E. 468; Skinner v. Walter A. Wood Mowing Mach. Co., 14 N. Y. St. 317. How value determined. To determine this value all the elements of value on the case will be considered (Berdan Firearms Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 26 Ct. Cl. 48 [affirmed in 156 U. S. 552, 15 S. Ct. 420, 39 L. ed. 530]; McKeever v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 396) ; and the testimony of experts is also admissible for this purpose (Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917, 59 Am. Rep. 321). 21. Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct. 193, 30 L. ed. 369; Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75, 3 S. Ct. 61, 27 L. ed. 862; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 14 How. (U. S.) 193, 14 L. ed. 383; [XI, B, 1, e, (n)] Bowers v. Lake Superior Contracting, etc., Co., 149 Fed. 983, 79 C. C. A. 493; Walter A. Wood Harvester Co. v. Minneapolis-Esterly Harvester Co., 61 Fed. 256; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371; Eclipse Windmill Co. v. Woodmanse Windmill Co., 24 Fed. 650; Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. 101; Gibbs v. Hoefner, 19 Fed. 323; Wilson v. Stolley, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 17,840, 5 McLeaa 1, Fish. Pat. Rep. 261. But see Baldwin v. Sibley, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 805, 1 Cliff. 150; Brooks v. Stolley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,963, Fish. Pat. Rep. 137, 4 McLean 275. An implied license to make and use does not pass by an administrator's sale of the licensee's place of business, including a few articles covered by the patent. Kraatz v. Tieman, 79 Fed. 322. 22. Tuttle v. La Dow, 54 Hun (N. Y.) 149, 7 N. Y. Suppl. 277 ; Oliver v. Rumford Chemi- cal Works, 109 U. S. 75, 3 S. Ct. 61, 27 L. ed. 862; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 14 How. (U. S.) 193, 14 L. ed. 383; Bowers v. Lake Superior Contracting, etc., Co., 149 Fed. 983, 79 C. C. A. 493; Waldo V. American Soda Fountain Co., 92 Fed. 623; Walter A. Wood Harvester Co. v. Minneapolis-Esterly Harvester Co., 61 Fed. 256; Adams v. How- ard, 22 Fed. 656, 23 Blatchf. 27; Putnam v. Hollender, 6 Fed. 882, 19 Blatchf. 48. 23. Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Whitney, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,132, 1 Ban. & A. 356, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 268. 24. Brush Electric Co. v. California Elec- tric Light Co., 52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368; Brooks v. Byam, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,948, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 161, 2 Story 525. 25. Adams v. Howard, 22 Fed. 656, 23 Blatchf. 27. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 961 originally unassignable, by facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties during the continuance of the license. 26 Even where a license contains a stipu- lation that it should be non-transferable, it may be assigned with the assent of the licensor, since such a stipulation is for his sole benefit. 27 (in) RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES. In the case of an assignment of a license, the assignee is bound to perform the conditions of the license, or the license will become forfeited. 28 But in the absence of any statutory provision the owner of a patented invention is not required to give notice to a voluntary pur- chaser of a licensee's right in order to enable him to hold such purchaser to the restricted use and enjoyment of the invention stipulated in the license. 29 It is the duty of the purchaser to inform himself of the nature of the licensee's owner- ship, and the extent of his right. 30 g. Revocation, Forfeiture, or Other Termination 81 (i) B Y LICENSOR. Where a license contains no power of revocation it cannot be annulled by the licensor without the consent of the licensee, 82 but he must proceed at law for breach of contract. 33 A breach of covenant does not per se work a forfeiture of a patent license, 34 even if the license contains an express stipulation to that effect. 35 It will remain in force so as to defeat a suit against the licensee for infringement until it has been rescinded by decree of a court having jurisdiction. 86 Where the licensor has an adequate remedy at law, equity will not interfere. 37 Where stipu- lations as to termination are included in the license they must be followed, and 26. Bowers v. Lake Superior Contracting, etc., Co., 149 Fed. 983, 79 C. C. A. 493. Thus the patentee may affirm an assign- ment by a licensee by receiving royalties from such assignee or otherwise recognizing and dealing with him as a licensee. Havana Press Drill Co. v. Ashurst, 148 111. 115, 35 N. E. 873; Wilde v. Smith, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 196; Lane, etc., Co. v. Locke, 150 U. S. 193, 14 S. Ct. 78, 37 L. ed. 1049; Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. v. Domestic Tel., etc., Co., 42 Fed. 220; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,558, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50. 27. Scutt v. Robertson, 127 111. 135, 19 N. E. 851. 28. Moody v. Taber, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,747, 1 Ban. & A. 41, Holmes 325, 5 Off. Gaz. 273; Wilson ?;. Stolley, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,840, Fish. Pat. Rep. 261, 5 McLean 1. The grantee from a licensee must pay the license-fees stipulated in the license from the patentee. Paper Stock Disinfecting Co. v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 147 Mass. 318, 17 N. E. 554; Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,565, 3 Blatchf. 449. But he will not be enjoined from acting under the license because of failure of his grantee to pay license-fees accrued before the con- veyance, nor is he liable therefor. Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co., supra. 29. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575. 30. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,582, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575. 31. Duration of license in general see supra, XI, B, 1, c. 32. Scutt v. Robertson, 127 111. 135, 19 N. E. 851; Barclay v. Charles Roome Parmele Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 218, 61 Atl. 715; Bezer v. Hall Signal Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 48 [61] N. Y. Suppl. 203; Consolidated Oil Well Packer Co. v. Jarecki Mfg. Co., 157 Pa. St. 342, 27 Atl. 543, 545; Wagner Typewriter Co. v. Watkins, 84 Fed. 57; Brush Electric Co. v. California Electric Light Co., 52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368; Illingworth v. Spauld- ing, 43 Fed. 827; Goddard v. Wilde, 17 Fed. 845; Kelly v. Porter, 17 Fed. 519, 8 Sawy. 482; Cook v. Bidwell, 8 Fed. 452; Burdell v. Denig. 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,142, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588; Bower v. Hodges, 13 C. B. 765, 17 Jur. 1057, 22 L. J. C. P. 194, 76 E. C. L. 765; Tielens v. Hooper, 5 Exch. 830, 20 L. J. Exch. 78; Guyot v. Thomson, 71 L. T. Rep. N. S. 124, 8 Reports 810 [affirmed in [1894] 3 Ch. 388, 64 L. J. Ch. 32, 71 L. T. Rep. N. S. 416, 8 Reports 814 note] ; Ward v. Livesey, 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 102 ; McLaughlin v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 2 Ont. L. Rep. 190. 33. Chase v. Cox, 41 Fed. 475. 34. Maitland v. Central Gas, etc., Co., 7 Misc. (N. Y.) 408, 27 N. Y. Suppl. 965 [af- firming 7 Misc. 245, 27 N. Y. Suppl. 421]; New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison, 136 Fed. 600 [affirmed in 144 Fed. 404, 75 C. C. A. 382]; Hanifen v. Lupton, 95 Fed. 465; Dare v. Boylston, 6 Fed. 493, 18 Blatchf. 548; White* v. Lee, 3 Fed. 222; Woodworth v. Weed, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022, 1 Blatchf. 165, Fish. Pat. Rep. 108. 35. Standard Dental Mfg. Co. v. National Tooth Co., 95 Fed. 291. 36. Planifen v. Lupton, 95 Fed. 465 ; Stand- ard Dental Mfg. Co. v. National Tooth Co., 95 Fed. 291. The exceptions to this rule are where the licensee has assumed such a hostile attitude toward the patent as to amount to a repudia- tion of the right conveyed by the license. Wood v. Wells, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,967, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382. 37. Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 Fed. 544. [XI, B, 1, g, (I)] 962 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS when performed end the agreement. 38 An agreement that upon failure of a party to a license to perform his covenant it may be forfeited by a written notice served on him is valid, and may be enforced. 39 (n) BY LICENSEE. In the absence of a stipulation to that effect, a license is not revocable by the licensee, except by mutual consent, or by the fault of the other party. 40 When so stipulated a licensee may terminate the license by giving written notice, and he will no longer be liable for royalty under it; 41 but the notice given must be clear and unequivocal. 42 The surrender of a license by part of the licensees does not avoid the license as to the remainder of the licensees. 43 (m) BY DEATH OF LICENSEE. A mere personal license is immediately ter- minated by the death of the licensee, and no rights thereunder pass to his personal representatives. 44 (iv) BY DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION. The dissolution of a partnership or corporation exercising a patent license extinguishes the license, in the absence of language importing transferability, 45 except as to a continuing partner. 46 (v) REVIVAL OF FORFEITED LICENSE. A license declared forfeited for breach of conditions cannot be revived by a tender of royalties due. 47 2. CONTRACTS. 48 Contracts in regard to patent rights are interpreted and enforced in the same manner as other legal engagements. 49 38. Garver v. Bement, 69 Mich. 149, 37 N. W. 63 ; Warth v. Liebovitz, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 632, 82 N. Y. Suppl. 578 [affirmed in 179 N. Y. 200, 71 N. E. 734] ; Pitts v. Jame- son, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 310; Stimpson Com- puting Scale Co. v. W. F. Stimpson Co., 104 Fed. 893, 44 C. C. A. 241; Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Johnson, 72 Fed. 147, 18 C. C. A. 490; Woodworth v. Weed, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022, 1 Blatchf. 165, Fish. Pat. Rep. 108. 39. Hammacher v. Wilson, 26 Fed. 239. Necessity of notice. In case of default written notice must be served on the licensee in order to terminate the license, where such license provides in terms for such notice. Kurd v. Gere, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 235; Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525 ; White v. Lee, 3 Fed. 222. 40. St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 11 S. Ct. 803, 35 L. ed. 404; Laver v. Dennett, 109 U. S. 90, 3 S. Ct. 73, 27 L. ed. 867; Cherry v. Heming, 2 Exch. 557, 17 L. J. Exch. 305; Lewin v. Brown, 14 Wkly. Rep. 640. Licensee may abandon license where pat- ent is void see Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Ellis, 159 Mass. 448, 34 N. E. 682; Harlow v. Putnam, 124 Mass. 553 ; Forncrook Mfg. Co. v. Barnum Wire, etc., Works, 63 Mich. 195, 29 N. W. 537; Macon Knitting Co. t?. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 138, 55 Atl. 401; Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 526; Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Thackara Mfg. Co., 167 Pa. St. 530, 31 Atl. 856; Ross v. Fuller, etc., Co., 105 Fed. 510; Mudgett v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 645. 41. Garver v. Bement, 69 Mich. 149, 37 N. W. 63. 42. Skinner v. Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co., 140 N. Y. 217, 35 N. E. 491, 37 Am. St. Rep. 540; Hurd v. Gere, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 235. 43. Theberath v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 143. [XI, B, 1, g, (i)] 44. Smith v. Preston, 170 111. 179, 48 N. E. 688; Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75, 3 S. Ct. 61, 27 L. ed. 862. 45. Warth v. Mertens, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 395, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 1092 [affirmed in 173 N. Y. 626, 66 N. E. 1117] ; Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct. 193, 30 L. ed. 369; Carroll v. Goldschmidt, 80 Fed. 520; Elgin Wind Power, etc., Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. 215, 12 C. C. A. 578; HafTcke v. Clark, 50 Fed. 531, 1 C. C. A. 570; Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. 101; Hapgood v. Hewitt, 11 Fed. 422, 11 Biss. 184. But see Wilson v. Mechanical Orguinette Co., 170 N. Y. 542, 63 N. E. 550 [reversing 57 N. Y. App. Div. 158, 68 N. Y. Suppl. 173]. 46. Belding v. Turner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,243, 8 Blatchf. 321, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 446. 47. Platt v. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 897, 8 C. C. A. 357. 48. Power of attorney to procure or man- age patent see PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 49. Eureka Clothes Wringing Mach. Co. V. Bailev Washing, etc., Mach. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) *488, 20 L. ed. 209; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728 ; Morse v. O'Reilly, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,858; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Crossman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,321, 3 Ban. & A. 281, 4 Cliff. 568. Intention of parties controls see Thorn Wire Hedge Co. v. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co., 159 U. S. 423, 16 S. Ct. 94, 40 L. ed. 205; Wooster r. Trowbridge, 120 Fed. 667, 57 C. C. A. 129 [affirming 115 Fed. 722]; Hartz V. Cleveland Block Co., 95 Fed. 681, 37 C. C. A. 227; Macallen Co. v. Johns-Pratt Co., 80 Fed. 410. Unambiguous contract not changed by parol evidence see Ralya v. Atkins, 157 Ind. 331, 61 N. E. 726. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 963 3. ROYALTIES a. Rights and Liabilities of Parties (i) WHEN ROYALTIES DUE. The time during which royalty must be paid depends entirely upon the terms of the contract. 50 No royalties, however, can be required on an agreement to grant a license under a patent if the patent is never granted. 51 (n) AMOUNT OF ROYALTY. The amount of royalty to which the licensor is entitled is the amount which has been fixed in the license agreement 52 or in the Not construed to be retroactive see Na- tional Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Willcox, etc., Sew- ing-Mach. Co., 74 Fed. 557, 20 C. C. A. 654. Consideration see Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Co. v. Singley, 17 N. Y. Suppl. 251 [affirmed in 137 N. Y. 557, 33 N. E. 337J ; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 108 Fed. 870, 48 C. C. A. 116 [affirming 107 Fed. 134]. Contract rather than the patent controls see Wilder v. Adams, 16 Gray (Mass.) 478; Eureka Clothes Wringing Mach. Co. v. Bailey Washing, etc., Mach. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488, 20 L. ed. 209 ; Harvey Steel Co. v. U. S., 39 Ct. Cl. 297. Binding on successors see Pratt v. Wil- cox Mfg. Co., 64 Fed. 589. Damages for breach see Standard Fire- proofing Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co., 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008. Agreement not to dispute validity of pat- ent is not against public policy. Philadel- phia Creamery Supply Co. v. Davis, etc., Co., 77 Fed. 879; Pratt v. Wilcox Mfg. Co., 64 Fed. 589. Agreement not to defend against any pat- ents owned by the plaintiff is against public policy and void. Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U. S. 224, 12 S. Ct. 632, 36 L. ed. 414. Contracts construed see Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 468; Lam- son v. Martin, 159 Mass. 557, 35 N. E. 78; Mouat v. Bamlet, 123 Mich. 345, 82 N. W. 74; Myrick v. Purcell, 99 Minn. 457, 109 N. W. 995; Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 102 N. W. 202; Standard Fire- proofing Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co., 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008; Bancroft v. Union Embossing Co., 72 N. H. 402, 57 Atl. 97, 64 L. R. A. 298; Peck r. Collins, 70 N. Y. 376 [affirmed in 103 U. S. 660, 26 L. ed. 512] ; Corbet v. Manhattan Brass Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 217, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 577; Ebert.0. Loewenstein, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 109, 58 N. Y. Suppl. 889 [reversed on other grounds in 167 N. Y. 577, 60 N. E. 1110]; Miller v. Jones, 67 Hun (N. Y.) 281, 22 N. Y. Suppl. 86; Hargraves v. A. B. Pit- kin Mach. Co., 19 R. I. 426, 34 Atl. 738; Vaughan v. Porter, 16 Vt. 266; Murphey v. Weil, 92 Wis. 467, 66 N. W. 532; Thorn Wire Hedge Co. v. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co., 150 U. S. 423, 16 S. Ct. 94, 40 L. ed. 205; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co., 152 Fed. 187; New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison, 136 Fed. 600 [affirmed in 144 Fed. 404, 75 C. C. A. 382] ; Kenny v. Knight, 119 Fed. 475; Wooster v. Trowbridge, 115 Fed. 722; Kerr v. Southwick, 109 Fed. 482; Fox Solid Pressed Steel Co. v. Schoen, 77 Fed. 29; Denning v. Bray, 61 Fed. 651, 10 C. C. A. 6; Goddard v. Wilde, 17 Fed. 845; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,879, 7 Blatchf. 86. See also Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317. 50. Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Burton v. Burton Stock-Car Co., 171 Mass. 437, 50 N. E. 1029; Hamilton v. Park, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 138, 70 N. W. 436; Nilsson v. De Haven, 168 N. Y. 656, 61 N. E. 1131; Fries v. Merck, 167 N. Y. 445, 60 N. E. 777; Bezer v. Hall Signal Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 203; People v. Remington, 59 Hun (N. Y.) 282, 12 N. Y. Suppl. 824, 14 N. Y. Suppl. 98 [affirmed in 126 N. Y. 654, 27 N. E. 853]; Union Mfg. Co. v. Lounsbury, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 125 [affirmed in 41 N. Y. 363] ; Will- cox, etc., Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Sherborn, 109 Fed. 319, 48 C. C. A. 378; Shepard v. Kinner, 86 Fed. 638, 30 C. C. A. 315. Release. Invalidity of patent releases li- censee if he quits using invention. Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Ellis, 159 Mass. 448, 34 N. E. 682 ; Harlow v. Putnam, 124 Mass. 553; Macon Knitting Co. v. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 138, 55 Atl. 401; Dutchess Tool Co. -v. Kolb, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 624, 60 N. Y. Suppl. 94; Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Thackara Mfg. Co., 167 Pa. St. 530, 31 Atl. 856; Mudgett v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 645. Date of payments see Confectioners' Mach., etc., Co. v. Panoualias, 134 Fed. 393, 67 C. C. A. 391; American Paper-Bag Co. v. Van Nortwick, 52 Fed. 752, 3 C. C. A. 274; Dare v. Boylston, 6 Fed. 493, 18 Blatchf. 548; Brooks v. Stolley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,962, 3 McLean 523, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 281. Due from legal representatives after li- censee's death see Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe- Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 333. 51. Hamilton 17. Park, etc., Co., 125 Mich. 72, 83 N. W. 1018; Travis v. Hunter, 41 Minn. 176, 42 N. W. 1015. By agreement royalty due before grant of patent see Burton v. Burton Stock- Car Co., 171 Mass. 437, 50 N. E. 1029; Hamilton v. Park, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 138, 70 N. W. 436; Nilsson v. De Haven, 168 N. Y. 656, 61 N. E. 1131; Bezer v. Hall Signal Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 203; Will- cox, etc., Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Sherborn, 109 Fed. 319, 48 C. C. A. 378. Liable under special agreement although patent not granted see Ingraham v. Schaum, 157 Pa. St. 88, 27 Atl. 404; Beecher v. Stein, 139 Pa. St. 570, 21 Atl. 79. In absence of special agreement due upon issue of patent see D. M. Steward Mfg. Co. v. Steward, 109 Tenn. 288, 70 S. W. 808. 52. Keith v. Electrical Engineering Co., 136 Cal. 178, 68 Pac. 598; Linington v. Strong, 111 111. 152; Simonds Rolling Mach. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., 180 Mass. 393, 62 N. E. [XI, B, 3, a, (II)] 964 [30 Cye.] PATENTS absence of definite agreement between the parties is determined by what is reasonable. 53 (in) PERSONS ENTITLED TO ROYALTIES. The owner of a patent who grants a license is entitled to royalty in accordance with the conditions of the contract whether express or implied. 54 Where one of several joint owners issues a license the others cannot recover part of the royalty from the licensee, 55 nor can they recover it from the licensor under an accounting. 56 (iv) PERSONS LIABLE FOR ROYALTIES. The licensee is liable during the continuation of the contract for the use of the invention referred to therein, 57 467; McGill v. Holmes, 168 N. Y. 647, 61 N. E. 1131. Minimum sum fixed see Hamilton v. Park, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 138, 70 N. W. 436; Genet v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 136 N. Y. 593, 32 N. E. 1078, 19 L. R. A. 127; Corbet v. Manhattan Brass Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 217, 87 N. Y. Suppl. 577; Ebert v. Loe wen- stein, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 109, 58 N. Y. Suppl. 889 [affirmed in 167 N. Y. 577, 60 N. E. 1110] ; Meyer v. Brenzinger, 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 712, 49 N. Y. Suppl. 1091. Particular contracts construed see Bates Mach. Co. v. Cookson, 202 111. 248, 66 N. E. 1093; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Selz, 157 111. 186, 41 N. E. 625; Warth v. Loewenstein, 121 111. App. 71 [affirmed in part in 219 111. 222, 76 N. E. 379]; Spurck v. Benner, 89 111. App. 79 ; Cummings v. Standard Harrow Co., 55 Misc. (N. Y.) 601, 105 N. Y. Suppl. 646; Dick v. Bovaird, 8 Pa. Cas. 70, 5 Atl. 30; Bovaird v. Dick, 8 Pa. Cas. 60, 5 Atl. 26; Bowers v. Lake Superior Contracting, etc., Co., 149 Fed. 983, 79 C. C. A. 493 ; West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 125 Fed. 342, 60 C. C. A. 220. Interest on overdue royalty see Pressey v. H. B. Smith Mach. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 872, 19 Atl. 618. 53. Bates Mach. Co. v. Cookson, 202 111. 248, 6t> N. E. 1093; Standard Fireproofing Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co., 177 Mo. 559, 76 S. W. 1008; Ross v. Ful- ler, etc., Co., 105 Fed. 510. 54. Blair v. Lippincott Glass Co., 52 Fed. 226; Consolidated Fruit- Jar Co. v. Whitney, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,134, 2 Ban. & A. 375. Equitable rights of partner see Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525. Contract inuring to benefit of owner see Mann's Boudoir Car Co. v. Gilbert Car Mfg. Co., 69 Hun (N. Y.) 245, 23 N. Y. Suppl. 697 [affirmed in 141 N. Y. 571, 36 N. E. 345] ; Grier v. Baynes, 46 Fed. 523 ; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,195, 1 Blatchf. 467, Fish. Pat. Rep. 290 [reversed on other grounds in 14 How. 193, 14 L. ed. 383]. Royalty implied under other patents see Felix v. Scharnweber, 19 111. App. 628 [af- firmed in 119 111. 445, 10 N. E. 16]. Conduct of licensor may be such as to estop see Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Thackara Mfg. Co., 167 Pa. St. 530, 31 Atl. 856 ; Angier v. Eaton, 98 Pa. St. 594. Grant- ing licenses to others, however, will not estop him in the absence of agreement. Jarecki V. Hays, 161 Pa. St. 613, 29 AtL 118; Hard- [XI, B, 3, a, (II)] wick v. Galbraith, 147 Pa. St. 333, 23 Atl. 451. 55. Paulus v. M. M. Buck Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 594, 64 C. C. A. 162; Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. National Enameling, etc., Co., 108 Fed. 77; Levy v. Dattlebaum, 63 Fed. 992; Pusey, etc., Co. v. Miller, 61 Fed. 401. 56. Vose v. Singer, 4 Allen (Mass.) 226, 81 Am. Dec. 696; De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Mfg. Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.) 301 [affirmed in 66 N. Y. 459, 23 Am. Rep. 73]; Blackledge v. Weir, etc., Mfg. Co., 108 Fed. 71, 47 C. C. A. 212. 57. The licensee is liable for at least the minimum amount specified; it makes no dif- ference whether he uses the invention or not. Linington v. Strong, 90 111. 556; Simonds Rolling Mach. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., 180 Mass. 393, 62 N. E. 467; Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531, 7 N. E. 621; Hackett !?. Hackett Hatch Door Mfg. Co., 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 263. Eviction or proper surrender is necessary to terminate liability. Skinner v. Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co., 140 N. Y. 217, 35 N. E. 491, 37 Am. St. Rep. 540 [af- firming 20 N. Y. Suppl. 251] ; Kurd v. Gere, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 235 ; Maitland v. Drew, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 60, 35 N. Y. Suppl. 249; McKay v. Smith, 39 Fed. 556; McKay v. Jackman, 17 Fed. 641. Liable after cancellation for past use see Hamilton v. Park, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 138, 70 N. W. 436. Not relieved by invalidity of patent see Warwick v. Stockton, (N. J. Ch. 1897) 37 Atl. 458; Kurd v. Gere, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 235; Holmes v. McGill, 108 Fed. 238, 47 C. C. A. 296; National Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Willcox, etc., Sewing- Mach. Co., 74 Fed. 557, 20 C. C. A. 654; Covell v. Bostwick, 39 Fed. 421. See also supra, VI, F. 4. Infringement by licensor or others does not per se relieve the licensor. Nunes v. Rus- sell, 65 111. App. 171; Skidmore v. Fahys Watch-Case Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 94, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 1016; Birdsall v. Perego, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,435, 5 Blatchf. 251. Transfer of license or business does not end liability. Porter v. Standard Measuring Mach. Co., 142 Mass. 191, 7 N. E. 925; Rodgers v. Torrant, 43 Mich. 113, 4 N. W. 507; Wilson v. Mechanical Orguinette Co., 170 N. Y. 542, 63 N. E. 550; Marsh v. Dodge, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 278 [affirmed in 66 N. Y. 533] ; Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 162. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 965 whether it is fully protected by patent or not. 58 He cannot allege invalidity or termination of contract so long as he acts under it. 59 Where a contractor is employed to do certain work and in doing it infringes a patent the contractor and not the employer is liable. 60 (v) LIEN. An agreement to pay royalties is a personal contract and creates no lien on the manufactured articles. 61 b. Remedies. Royalties may be collected by an action at law, 62 and an action Where the device infringes another patent the licensee may stop use and refuse to pay further royalty. Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Ellis, 159 Mass. 448, 34 N. E. 682; Harlow v. Putnam, 124 Mass. 553; Macon Knitting Co. v. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 138, 55 Atl. 401; Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Thackara Mfg. Co., 167 Pa. St. 530, 31 Atl. 856; Mudgett v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 645; McKay v. Smith, 39 Fed. 556; McKay v. Jackman, 17 Fed. 641. 58. Keith v. Electrical Engineering Co., 136 Cal. 178, 68 Pac. 598; Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 411 [re- versed on other grounds in 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317] ; Palmer's Ap- peal, 96 Pa. St. 106; U. S. v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, 25 S. Ct. 240, 49 L. ed. 492; Corbin v. Taussig, 137 Fed. 151; Leslie v. Standard Sewing-Mach. Co., 98 Fed. 827, 39 C. C. A. 314; Sproull v. Pratt, etc., Co., 97 Fed. 807. Liability includes unpatented as well as patented articles see McGill v. Holmes, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 628, 64 N. Y. Suppl. 787 [affirmed in 168 N. Y. 647, 61 N. E. 1131]. Agreement controls and not the scope of the patent. Kroegher v. McConway, etc., Co., 149 Pa. St. 444, 23 Atl. 341; Kirkpatrick v. Pope Mfg. Co., 64 Fed. 369. Substitution of another device does not avoid liability. Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 468, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 411 [reversed on other grounds in 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317]; Denise v. Swett, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 188, 22 N. Y. Suppl. 950 [reversed on other grounds in 142 N. Y. 602, 37 N. E. 627]. Not liable for use of things outside of pat- ent and of agreement see Forncrook Mfg. Co. v. Barnum Wire, etc., Works, 63 Mich. 195, 29 N. W. 537; Dutchess Tool Co. v. Kolb, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 624, 60 N. Y. Suppl. 94; Hyatt v. Mark, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 727 [affirmed in 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285]; Moore v. National Water- Tube Boiler Co., 84 Fed. 346 ; Standard Sew- ing-Mach. Co. v. Leslie, 78 Fed. 325, 24 C. C. A. 107; Covell v. Bostwick, 39 Fed. 421. Use of one of several patents mentioned see Kline v. M. Garland Co., 135 Mich. 313, 97 N. W. 768; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Owsley, 27 Fed. 100. Not liable for different invention see Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317. Royalty only on machines under patent. Goucher v. Clayton, 11 Jur. N. S. 462, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 111. Liable under contract whether or not fol- lowed strictly. Smith v. Goldie, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 46; Yates v. Great Western R. Co., 24 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 495; Smith v. Powell, 7 U. C. C. P. 332. 59. Bowers' California Dredging Co. V. San Francisco Bridge Co., 132 Cal. 342, 64 Pac. 475; Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Ecau- bert, 177 111. 587, 52 N. E. 861; Clark v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 612; Warwick v. Stockton, (N. J. Ch. 1897) 37 Atl. 458; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285 [affirming 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 727] ; Dutchess Tool Co. v. Kolb, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 624, 60 N. Y. Suppl. 94; Skidmore v. Fahys Watch-Case Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 94, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 1016; Denise i;. Swett, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 188, 22 N. Y. Suppl. 950 [reversed on other grounds in 142 N. Y. 602, 37 N. E. 627] ; Gay lord v. Case, 5 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 413, 5 Am. L. Rec. 494; Consolidated Oil Well Packer Co. v. Jarecki Mfg. Co., 157 Pa. St. 342, 27 Atl. 543, 545; U. S. v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, 25 S. Ct. 240, 49 L. ed. 492; American St. Car Advertising Co. V. Jones, 122 Fed. 803 [re- versed on other grounds in 142 Fed. 974, 74 C. C. A. 236]; Holmes v. McGill, 108 Fed. 238, 47 C. C. A. 296 ; Leslie v. Standard Sew- ing-Mach. Co., 98 Fed. 827, 39 C. C. A. 314; Sproull v. Pratt, etc., Co., 97 Fed. 807 ; Moore v. National Water-Tube Boiler Co., 84 Fed. 346; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. Hess, 68 Fed. 119, 15 C. C. A. 303; Harvey Steel Co. v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 662. 60. May v. Juneau County, 30 Fed. 241; Bryce v. Dorr, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,070, 3 Mc- Lean 582, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 302; Stow v. Chicago, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,512, 3 Ban. & A. 83, 8 Biss. 47 [affirmed in 104 U. S. 547, 26 L. ed. 816]. Release of contractor releases employer. Bigelow v. Louisville, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 1,400, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602. Where employer is licensee contractor is released. Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Johnson R. Signal Co., 52 Fed. 867 [reversed on other grounds in 55 Fed. 487, 5 C. C. A. 204]. Both liable where both have knowledge see Palmer v. Landphere, 118 Fed. 52. 61. People ?. Remington, 126 N. Y. 654, 27 N. E. 853 [affirming 59 Hun 282, 12 N. Y. Suppl. 824, 14 N. Y. Suppl. 98]. 62. Preston v. Smith, 156 111. 359, 40 N. E. 949; American Merchants' Mfg. Co. v. Kantrowitz, 77 111. App. 155; American Mach., etc., Co. v. Stewart, 115 La. 188, 38 So. 960; Stewart Mfg. Co. v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 67 N. J. L. 577, 52 Atl. 391 ; Scheurle v. Husbands, 65 N. J. L. 40, 46 Atl. 759 ; Hyatt V. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285; Gug- genheim v. Kirchofer, 66 Fed. 755, 14 C. C. A. 72; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co v. Cincinnati Barbed- Wire Fence Co., 42 Fed. 675; Wash- [XI, B, 3, b] OG6 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS for an accounting may be joined with a demand for equitable relief by forfeiture of the license. 63 State courts have jurisdiction of an action to recover royalties under an agreement where there is no question as to the validity of the patent. 64 C. Enforcement of Assignments, Contracts, and Agreements. A court of equity will enforce the rights of parties under a contract or agreement relating to patent rights by making appropriate orders in the same manner as under other agreements. 63 It is held that the ordinary rules of practice and procedure burn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., 41 Fed. 410; Moxon v. Bright, L. R. 4 Ch. 292, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 961 ; Kernot v. Potter, 3 De G. F. & J. 447, 64 Eng. Ch. 350, 45 Eng. Reprint 951. Facts entitling plaintiff to royalty must be shown. Meyer v. Saul, 82 Md. 459, 33 Atl. 539; Stewart Mfg. Co. v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., G7 N. J. L. 577, 52 Atl. 391; Russell v . U. S., 35 Ct. Cl. 154. May sue for breach or for infringement see Kilburn v. Holmes, 121 Fed. 750, 58 C. C. A. 116; Starling v. St. Paul Plow- Works, 32 Fed. 290; Cohn v. National Rubber Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,968, 3 Ban. & A. 568, 15 Off. <3az. 829; England v. Thompson, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,487, 3 Cliff. 271; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,949, 2 Ban. & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 151, 8 Off. Gaz. 773; Wood worth v. Weed, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022, 1 Blatchf. 165, Fish. Pat. Rep. 108. But see Consolidated Middlings Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. 814. Invalidity of patent is no defense. Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Jones r. Burnham, 67 Me. 93, 24 Am. Rep. 10; Hall Mfg. Co. r>. American R. Supply Co., 48 Mich. 331, 12 N. W. 205; Clark v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 612; Warwick v. Stock- ton, (N. J. Ch. 1897) 37 Atl. 458; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 375; Baylis v. Bullock Electric Mfg. Co., 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 218, 66 N. Y. Suppl. 253 [reversed on other grounds in 59 N. Y. App. Div. 576, 69 N. Y. Suppl. 693]; McGill v. Holmes, 64 N. Y. Suppl. 787; Brusie v. Peck, 16 N. Y. Suppl. 648; Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Thackara Mfg. Co., 167 Pa. St. 530, 31 Atl. 856; In- graham v. Schaum, 157 Pa. St. 88, 27 Atl. 404; Patterson's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 521; Marsh v. Harris Mfg. Co., 63 Wis. 276, 22 N. \V. 516; Eureka Clothes Wringing Mach. Co. v. Bailey Washing, etc., Mach. Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488, 20 L. ed. 209; Moore v. National Water-Tube Boiler Co., 84 Fed. 346 ; Godell r. Wells, etc., Co., 70 Fed. 319. Burden of proof see Bennett r. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 121 N. Y. App. Div. 133, 105 N. Y. Suppl. 593. Weight and sufficiency of evidence see Ben- nett v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 121 N. Y. App. Div. 133, 105 N. Y. Suppl. 593. Question for jury see Gaylord v. Case, 5 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 413, 5 Am. L. Rec. 494. Right of appeal where infringement or validity involved see St. Paul Plow-Works 7;. Starling, 127 U. S. 376, 8 S. Ct. 1327, 32 L. ed. 251. Review on appeal see Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285 [affirming 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507.. 2 N. Y. Suppl. 727] ; U. S. v. [XI, B, 3, b] Berdan Firearms Mfg. Co., 156 U. S. 552, 15 S. Ct. 420, 39 L. ed. 530. Procedure before referee see Hyatt v. Mark, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 727 [affirmed in 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285]. 63. Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 468; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285 [affirming 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 507, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 727] ; Adams v. Mey- rose, 7 Fed. 208, 2 McCrary 360; Woodworth v. Weed, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022, 1 Blatchf. 165, Fish. Pat. Rep. 108; Ashworth v. Roberts, 45 Ch. D. 623, 60 L. J. Ch. 27, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 160, 39 Wkly. Rep. 170; Haddan v. Smith, 11 Jur. 959, 17 L. J. Ch. 43, 16 Sim. 42, 39 Eng. Ch. 42, 60 Eng. Reprint 788. And see Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 23 App. Cas. (D. C. ) 411 [reversed in part in 199 U. S. 581, 26 S. Ct. 150, 50 L. ed. 317]. Discovery, injunction, and account see Ball Glove Fastening Co. v. Ball, etc., Fastener Co., 36 Fed. 309; McKay v. Smith, 29 Fed. 295 [affirmed in 164 U. S. 701, 17 S. Ct. 1001, 41 L. ed. 1180]. Equity interferes only where remedy at law inadequate see Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co., 42 Fed. 675; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Freeman, 41 Fed. 410. 64. Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 377; Bull v. Pratt, 1 Conn. 342; Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Havana Press Drill Co. V. Ashurst, 148 111. 115, 35 N. E. 873; Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Ecaubert, 75 111. App. 418; Hunt v. Hoover, 24 Iowa 231; Binney v. Annan, 107 Mass. 94, 9 Am. Rep. 10; Continental Store Service Co. v. Clark, 100 N. Y. 365, 3 N. E. 335; Snow v. Judson, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 210; Darst v. Brockway, 11 Ohio 462; Standard Combustion Co. v. Farr, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 509, 14 Cine. L. Bui. 201; Hubbard v. Allen, 123 Pa. St. 198, 16 Atl. 772; Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. S. 624, 17 S. Ct. 425, 41 L. ed. 851 ; Marsh v. Nichols, 140 U. S. 344, 11 S. Ct. 798, 35 L. ed. 413; Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293, 11 S. Ct. 528, 35 L. ed. 193; Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54, 8 S. Ct. 759, 31 L. ed. 687; Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46, 8 S. Ct. 756, 31 L. ed. 683: Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 613, 1 S. Ct. 550, 27 L. ed. 295; Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. (U. S.) 99, 13 L. ed. 344; Blanchard 1?. Sprague, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,516, 1 Cliff. 288; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,568, 1 Blatchf. 565, Fish. Pat. Rep. 385. 65. Specific performance see Manvel v. Holdredge, 45 N. Y. 151; Maugham v. Parkes Sewing Mach. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 609, 74 N. "Y. Suppl. 689 ; Leicester, etc., Mills Co. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 967 apply. 66 State courts have jurisdiction where there is no question of infringe- ment or validity of the patents. 67 XII. REGULATION OF DEALINGS IN PATENT RIGHTS AND PATENTED ARTICLES. A. By Congress 1. FAILURE TO MARK PATENTED ARTICLES. Patentees are required to give notice that their articles are patented by placing a notice to that effect upon the articles or upon the package containing them. 68 In the absence V. Macon Knitting Co., 116 Fed. 196, 53 C. C. A. 621; Foster v. Goldschmidt, 21 Fed. 70; Wood v. Wells, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,967, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382. When specific performance refused see Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 S. Ct. 202, 32 L. ed. 576. Suit to annul see Backus Portable Steam Heater Co. v. Simonds, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 290; American Street Car Advertising Co. v. Jones, 122 Fed. 803 [reversed on other grounds in 142 Fed. 974, 74 C. C. A. 236] ; Patton v. Glatz, 56 Fed. 367. Injunction granted see Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co., 136 Fed. 272; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371; Goddard v. Wilde, 17 Fed. 845; Day v. Hartshorn, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,683, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 32; Singer Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Union Button-Hole, etc., Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,904, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 480, Holmes 253, 4 Off. Gaz. 553; Wilson v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833, 1 Blatchf. 536, Fish. Pat. Rep. 361. Injunction refused see Henderson v. Dough- erty, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 346, 88 N. Y. Suppl. 665; Brunner v. Kaempfer, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 177, 37 N. Y. Suppl. 700; Young Reversible Lock-Nut Co. t?. Young Lock-Nut Co., 66 Fed. 563; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Westlake, 53 Fed. 588; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 40 Fed. 584 ; Aapinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. 702 ; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co., 22 Fed. 712; Baker Mfg. Co. v. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co., 18 Fed. 172, 5 McCrary 504; Crowell v. Parmenter, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,446, 3 Ban. & A. 480, 18 Off. Gaz. 360; Florence Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Singer Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,884, 8 Blatchf. 113, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 329; Smith v. Cummings, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,034, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 152; Wilson v. Sherman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833, 1 Blatchf. 536, Fish. Pat. Rep. 361. Where there is an adequate remedy at law equity will not interfere. Crandall v. Piano Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. 738; Perkins v. Hendryx, 23 Fed. 418; Baker Mfg. Co. v. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co., supra. 66. Parties see Backus Portable Steam Heater Co. v. Simonds, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 290; Rogers v. Riessner, 30 Fed. 525; Florence Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Singer Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,884, 8 Blatchf. 113, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 329. Pleading see Ralya v. Atkins, 157 Ind. 331, 61 N. E. 726; Torrent v. Rodgers, 39 Mich. 85; Dalzell v. Fahy's Watch Case Co., 138 N. Y. 285, 33 N. E. 1071; Marsh v. Dodge, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 541; Smith v. Standard Laun- dry Mach. Co., 11 Daly (N. Y.) 154; Wilcox, etc., Sewing Mach. Co. v. Himes, 21 N. Y. Suppl. 760 ; Dancel v. .United Shoe Mach. Co., 120 Fed. 839; White v. Lee, 4 Fed. 916: Theberath v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. 143. Evidence see Brusie v. Peck, 135 N. Y. 622, 32 N. E. 76; Marsh v. Dodge, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 541; Hubbard v. Allen, 123 Pa. St. 198, 16 Atl. 772; St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 11 S. Ct. 803, 35 L. ed. 404; Rogers v. Riessner, 34 Fed. 270. 67. Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 N. E. 118; Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Ecau- bert, 75 111. App. 418 [affirmed in 177 111. 587, 52 N. E. 861]; Standard Combustion Co. V. Farr, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 509, 14 Cine. L. Bui. 201. See also supra, XI, B, 1, e. 68. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4900 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]. Sufficiency of notice see Dunlap v. Scho- field, 152 U. S. 244, 14 S. Ct. 576, 38 L. ed. 426; Sessions V. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 S. Ct. 799, 36 L. ed. 609; Inman Mfg. Co. v. Beach, 71 Fed. 420, 18 C. C. A. 165. Marking is legal notice to all. Hogg v. Gimbel, 94 Fed. 518. The article and not merely the package must be marked where possible. Smith v. Walton, 51 Fed. 17; Sessions v. Romadka, 21 Fed. 124. Particular part of article for notice is im- material. Dade v. Boorum, etc., Co., 121 Fed. 135. Patented processes are not within the re- quirement. U. S. Mitis Co. v. Midvale Steel Co., 135 Fed. 103; U. S. Mitis Co. v. Car- negie Steel Co., 89 Fed. 206 [affirmed in 90 Fed. 829, 33 C. C. A. 387]. Where patentee has not made and sold articles under his patent the requirement does not apply. Ewart Mfg. Co. v. Baldwin Cycle- Chain Co., 91 Fed. 262; Campbell v. New York, 81 Fed. 182. Date. Notice must include date. Traver v. Brown, 62 Fed. 933 [reversed on other grounds in 70 Fed. 810, 17 C. C. A. 424]; Hawley v. Bagley, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,248. Excuse for not marking is immaterial. Putnam t. Sudhoff, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,483, 1 Ban. & A. 198. Burden of proof. The burden is on de- fendant to show absence of mark. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; U. S. Printing Co. i;. American Playing-Card Co., 70 Fed. 50; Schofield v. Dunlop, 42 Fed. 323; Goodyear v. Allyn, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,555, 6 Blatchf. 33, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 374. Contra, Matthews, etc., Mfg. Co. v. National Brass, etc., Works, 71 Fed. 518; National Co. V. Belcher, 68 Fed. 665 [modified in 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375]. Complainant must allege marking see Sprague v. Bramhall-Deane Co., 133 Fed. 738. [XII, A, 1] 968 [30 Cye.] PATENTS of such notice on the article no damages can be collected except where the infringer continues after actual notice. 69 2. MARKING UNPATENTED ARTICLE. Parties are prohibited by statute from marking articles for which they have not obtained a patent with any mark indi- cating that they are patented, 70 and are prohibited from marking articles patented by another with any mark in imitation of the name or marks of the real patentee. 71 3. PENALTIES a. In General. For such wrongful marking of articles the guilty party is liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars with costs for every offense, one half of such penalty going to the party who shall sue for the same and the other to the United States. 72 Canada. Must mark subject to penalty of one hundred dollars. St. 38 Viet. c. 14, 3. 69. Must prove actual notice. Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244, 14 S. Ct. 576, 38 L. ed. 426 ; Pairpoint Mfg. Co. v. Eldridge Co., 71 Fed. 307. Sufficiency of actual notice see U. S. Mitis Co. v. Midvale Steel Co., 135 Fed. 103; Jen- nings v. Rogers Silver Plate Co., 96 Fed. 340 ; Thompson v. N. T. Bushnell Co., 96 Fed. 238, 37 C. C. A. 456 ; Ryan v. Newark Spring Mat- tress Co., 96 Fed. 100; New York Pharmical Assoc. v. Tilden, 14 Fed. 740, 21 Blatchf. 190. Recovery limited to infringement after no- tice see Allen v. Deacon, 21 Fed. 122; Put- nam v. Sudhoff, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,483, 1 Ban. & A. 198. When some articles marked and some not marked only nominal damages are recover- able. B. B. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Stewart, 116 Fed. 927. Right to injunction. Absence of notice af- fects damages only and not right to injunc- tion. McDowell v. Kurtz, 77 Fed. 206, 23 C. C. A. 119; Horn v. Bergner, 68 Fed. 428 [affirmed in 72 Fed. 687] ; Anderson v. Mon- roe, 55 Fed. 398 [reversed on other grounds in 58 Fed. 398, 7 C. C. A. 272] ; Goodyear v. Allyn, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,555, 6 Blatchf. 33, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 374. 70. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4901 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]. Intent to deceive is necessary in order to create offense. Bowman v. Read, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 591, 17 L. ed. 812; A. B. Dick Co. v. Fuerth, 57 Fed. 834; Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples Wooden- Ware Co., 53 Fed. 1018; Lawrence v. Holmes, 45 Fed. 357 ; Tompkins v. Butterfield, 25 Fed. 556 ; Nichols v. Newell, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,245, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 647; Stephens v. Caldwell, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,367; Walker v. Hawxhurst, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,071, 5 Blatchf. 494. Marking after application but before pay- ment may or may not constitute offense ac- cording to intent Lauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 194; Nichols v. Newell, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,245, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 647; Stephens v. Caldwell, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,367. Expiration of patent on device does not create offense. Wilson v. Singer Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,836, 4 Ban. & A. 637, 9 Biss. 173, 16 Off. Gaz. 1091, 9 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 338 [affirmed in 12 Fed. 57, 11 Biss. 298]. [XII. A, 1] Actual sale of article is not necessary. Nichols v. Newell, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,245, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 647. Whether the things marked are of such a nature as to be capable of being patented bears simply upon intent to deceive. Winne v. Snow, 19 Fed. 507; Oliphant v. Salem Flouring Mills Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,486, 3 Ban. & A. 256, 5 Sawy. 128; U. S. v. Morris, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,814, 2 Bond 23, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 72. Marking "Patent Applied For" is permis- sible. A. B. Dick Co. v. Fuerth, 57 Fed. 834; Schwebel v. Bothe, 40 Fed. 478. 71. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4901 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]. Article must be covered by the patent see Russell v. Newark Mach. Co., 55 Fed. 297; French v. Foley, 11 Fed. 801. Injunction. Patentee may obtain injunc- tion. Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. W. F. Stimpson Co., 104 Fed. 893, 44 C. C. A. 241; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haish, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,217, 4 Ban. & A. 571, 9 Biss. 141, 18 Off. Gaz. 465. Invalidity of the patent is no defense for marking without patentee's consent. Myers v. Baker, 3 H. & N. 802, 28 L. J. Exch. 90, 7 Wkly. Rep. 66. 72. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4901 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388]. Canada. Penalty two hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months or both. St. 35 Viet. c. 26, 50. Offense committed see Nichols v. Newell, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,245, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 647; Oliphant v. Salem Flouring Co., 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,486, 3 Ban. & A. 256, 5 Sawy. 128. Offense not committed see Russell v. New- ark Mach. Co., 55 Fed. 297 ; Wilson v. Singer Mfg. Co., 12 Fed. 57, 11 Biss. 298. The amount of the penalty is one hundred dollars and no more. Stimpson v. Pond, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,455, 2 Curt. 502. Compare Nichols v. Newell, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,245, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 647. Single offense may include marking of a number of articles at the same time. Hoyt t?. Computing Scale Co., 96 Fed. 250; Hotch- kiss v. Samuel Cupples Wooden- Ware Co., 53 Fed. 1018. Where the patentee has failed to mark his own articles " patented " it is held that the patentee cannot recover the penalty. Smith v. Walton, 56 Fed. 499; Smith v. Walton, 51 Fed. 17. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 969 b. Infringement of Design Patents. One who knowingly infringes a design patent is liable in the amount of at least two hundred and hfty dollars and if his profits are greater he is liable for the excess. 73 The owner of the patent may recover the amount at law or in equity. 74 B. By States. The owner of a patent himself cannot make and sell his patented articles in violation of the laws of the state prescribed for the general welfare. 75 The right conferred by statute to make, use, and vend his invention throughout the United States and the territories thereof is not granted or secured without reference to the general powers which the several states of the Union unquestionably possess over their purely domestic affairs, whether of internal com- merce or police. 76 The manufacture and sale of patented articles is subject to state legislation enacted in pursuance of the police power inherent in the state, 77 to the taxing power of the states, 78 if there is no discrimination in such taxation as between the patented article and the sale of other similar articles in the state, 79 and a license-fee can be required for selling in the state patented articles. 80 With respect to the power of states to regulate the transfer or sale of patent rights themselves, there is a very considerable conflict of authority. In a large number The informer, although without interest, brings suit in his own name and not in the name of the United States. Winne v. Snow, 19 Fed. 507; U. S. v. Morris, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,814, 2 Bond 23, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 72. Where suit brought. Suits must be brought in the district where offense committed. Winne v. Snow, 19 Fed. 507; Pentlarge v. Kirby, 19 Fed. 501. Allegations. Essential facts must be al- leged, but not necessarily the day stamping was done. Fish v. Manning. 31 Fed. 340. Intent is a question for the jury. Walker v. Hawxhurst, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,071, 5 Blatchf. 494. Statute strictly construed see Pentlarge v. Kirby, 19 Fed. 501. Proofs strictly construed see Hawloetz v. Kass, 25 Fed. 765 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 638, 10 S. Ct. 1068, 34 L. ed. 549]; Hawley v. Bagley, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,248. 73. Act Feb. 4, 1887, 24 U. S. St. at L. 387 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3398]; Frank v. Geiger, 121 Fed. 126. Infringement must be wilful after notice. See Fuller v. Field, 82 Fed. 813, 27 C. C. A. 165; Monroe v. Anderson, 58 Fed. 398, 7 C. C. A. 272. Infringement of several claims in one pat- ent constitutes only one offense. Gimbel v. Hogg, 97 Fed. 791, 38 C. C. A. 419. Sufficiency . of notice. Marking patented articles is not such notice as will make in- fringer's act one after notice. Gimbel v. Hogg, 97 Fed. 791, 38 C. C. A. 419. 74. See infra, XIII, C, 12, a, (m). 75. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 507; Jordan v. Dayton, 4 Ohio 294; Bement i?. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 S. Ct. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058; Web- ber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 20 L. ed. 565 ; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. ed. 1115; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L.' R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 171 ; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. 62, 4 McCrary 1. Sale of patent rights and patented articles distinguished. There is a manifest distinc- tion between the right of property in the patent, which carries with it the power on the part of the patentee to assign it, and the right to sell the property resulting from the invention or patent. When the fruits of the invention or the article made by reason of the application of the principle discovered is attempted to be sold or used within the ju- risdiction of a state, it is subject to its laws, like other property. Patterson v. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.) 311, 21 Am. Rep. 220 [affirmed in 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. ed. 1115]. 76. Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. ed. 1115. 77. In re Opinion of Justices, 193 Mass. 605, 81 N. E. 142; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 347, 26 L. ed. 565 (in which it was said : " Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace, and general welfare of the community are promoted. Whatever rights are secured to inventors must be enjoyed in subordination to this general authority of the State over all property within its limits " ) ; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. ed. 1115; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. V. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, 78 Off. Gaz. 171. 78. Palmer v. State, 39 Ohio St. 236, 48 Am. Rep. 429 ; State v. Bell Tel. Co., 36 Ohio St. 296, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Webber v. Vir- ginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565; In re Sheffield, 64 Fed. 833. 79. Palmer v. State, 39 Ohio St. 236, 48 Am. Rep. 429. To the same effect see In re Sheffield, 64 Fed. 833. A law imposing a fee only in case the arti- cles are made outside of the state is invalid as subjecting them to a discriminating regu- lation or burden. Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565. 80. People v. Russell, 49 Mich. 617, 14 N. W. 568, 43 Am. Rep. 478, 25 Off. Gaz. 504 ; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565. Contra, State v. Butler, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 222. [XII, B] 970 [30 Cye.] PATENTS of cases, both state and federal, the right has been upheld, 81 while in others, both state and federal, the constitutionality of such regulations has been denied, 82 and it has been held that a license-tax cannot be imposed upon the right to vend patent rights. 83 In a very recent decision of the United States supreme court, however, it was held that a " state has the power, certainly until congress legis- lates upon the subject, with regard to the provision which shall accompany the sale or assignment of rights arising under a patent, to make reasonable regulations concerning the subject, calculated to protect its citizens from fraud," and a state law providing that before barter or sale of patent rights an authenticated copy of the letters patent and the authority of the vendor to sell the right patented shall be filed in the office of the county within which the rights were sold was sustained as a reasonable regulation. 84 And in another recent decision of that court the validity of a state statute making void a note given for a patent, if the note fails to show on its face for what it was given, was upheld. 85 81. Arkansas. Tilson v. Gatling, 60 Ark. 114, 29 S. W. 35. Indiana. Sandage v. Studabaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 142 Ind. 148, 41 N. E. 380, 51 Am. St. Kep. 165, 34 L. R. A. 363; Mayfield v. Sears, 133 Ind. 86, 32 N. E. 816; Hankey v. Downey, 116 Ind. 118, 18 N. E. 271, 1 L. R. A. 447; New v. Walker, 108 Ind. 365, 9 N. E. 386, 58 Am. Rep. 40; Brechbill v. Randall, 102 Ind. 528, 1 N. E. 362, 52 Am. Rep. 695 [overruling Grover, etc., Sewing Mach. Co. v. Butler, 53 Ind. 454, 21 Am. Rep. 200]. Contra, Helm v. Huntington First Nat. Bank, 43 Ind. 167, 13 Am. Rep. 395. Kansas. Nyhart v. Kubach, 76 Kan. 154, 90 Pac. 796; Allen v. Riley, 71 Kan. 378, 80 Pac. 952, 114 Am. St. Rep. 481 [affirmed in 203 U. S. 347, 27 S. Ct. 95, 51 L. ed. 216] ; Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 Pac. 76, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327, 41 L. R. A. 548. Ohio. Tod v. Wick, 36 Ohio St. 370. Pennsylvania. Graham's Estate, 14 Phila. 280. United States. Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. 774. And see cases cited infra, this note. Instances. A state may require that notes given for patent rights be marked to indicate the fact. Pinney v. Concordia First Nat. Bank, 68 Kan. 223, 75 Pac. 119; Mason v. McLeod, 57 Kan. 105, 45 Pac. 76, 57 Am. St. Rep. 327, 41 L. R. A. 548; Rumbley V. Hall, 107 Ky. 349, 54 S. W. 4, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1071 ; Nunn* v. Citizens' Bank, 107 Ky. 262, 53 S. W. 665, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 961; Bohon v. Brown, 101 Ky. 354, 41 S. W. 273, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 540, 72 Am. St. Rep. 420, 38 L. R. A. 503; Herdic v. Roessler, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 198 [affirmed in 109 N. Y. 127, 16 N. E. 198]; Shires v. Com., 120 Pa. St. 368, 14 Atl. 251; Haskell v. Jones, 86 Pa. St. 173; State v. Cook, 107 Tenn. 499, 64 S. W. 720, 62 L. R. A. 174. So the state may require the filing of a copy of the patent and an affidavit as to its genuineness. New v. Walker, 108 Ind. 365, 9 N. E. 386, 58 Am. Rep. 40; Brechbill v. Randall, 102 Ind. 528, 1 N. E. 362, 52 Am. Rep. 695. What constitutes sale of patent right. A contract by which the owner of a patent right conveys to another the exclusive right to sell the patented article within certain [XII, B] prescribed territory for a term of years is a sale of such an interest in a patent right as brings the transaction within Gen. St. (1901) 4356-4358, relating to the registration and sale of patent rights, and prescribing a pen- alty for the violation thereof. Nyhart v. Kubach, 76 Kan. 154, 90 Pac. 796. A terri- torial lease and appointment of agency giving the party of the second part six sample ma- chines and the agency for the sale of the same for a term of years, the company agree- ing to furnish all machines ordered by the agent at a certain fixed price, is a contract for the sale of a patent right within Gen. St. (1901) 4356-4358. Nyhart v. Kubach, supra. 82. Illinois. Hollida v. Hunt, 70 111. 109, 22 Am. Rep. 63. Michigan. People v. Russell, 49 Mich. 617, 14 N. W. 568, 43 Am. Rep. 478, 25 Off. Gaz. 504; Cransen v. Smith, 37 Mich. 309, 26 Am. Rep. 514. Minnesota. Crittenden v. White, 23 Minn. 24, 23 Am. Rep. 676. Nebraska. Wilch v. Phelps, 14 Nebr. 134, 15 N. W. 361. Wisconsin. State v. Lockwood, 43 Wls. 403. United States. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., 154 Fed. 358, 83 C. C. A. 336; Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Nat. Bank, 145 Fed. 344, 76 C. C. A. 218; U. S. Consol. Seeded B.aisin Co. v. Grif- fin, etc., Co., 126 Fed. 364, 61 C. C. A. 334; Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire Co., 71 Fed. 302; Castle v. Hutchinson, 25 Fed. 394; Ex p. Robinson, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,932, 2 Biss. 309, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 186; Woollen v. Banker, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,030, 2 Flipp. 33, 5 Reporter 259, 17 Alb. L. J. '(N. Y.) 72. 83. Com. v. Petty, 96 Ky. 452, 29 S. W. 291, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 488, 29 L. R. A. 786; People v. Russell, 49 Mich. 617, 14 N. W. 568, 43 Am. Rep. 478, 25 Off. Gaz. 504; In re Sheffield, 64 Fed. 833. 84. Allen v. Riley, 203 U. S. 347, 27 S. Ct. 95, 51 L. ed. 216 [affirming 71 Kan. 378, 80 Pac. 952, 114 Am. St. Rep. 481]. 85. Woods v. Carl, 203 U. S. 358, 27 S. Ct. 99, 51 L. ed. 219 [affirming 75 Ark. 328, 87 S. W. 621]. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 9T1 XIII. INFRINGEMENT. 86 A. What Constitutes 1. IN GENERAL. The infringement of a patent is the unauthorized making, using, or selling of the invention daring the life of the patent. 87 The use of what was old prior to the patentee's invention will not infringe. 88 The patent must be a valid one, otherwise there is no basis for a suit for infringement. 89 86. Enjoining libel or slander on patent see INJUNCTIONS, 22 Cyc. 901. Use by the government see supra, I, B, 4. 87. See cases cited infra, this note. Authorization by owner. There is no in- fringement where the manufacture, use, or sale was authorized by the owner of the patent. Holmes v. Kirkpatrick, 133 Fed. 232, 60 C. C. A. 286; Hanifen v. Lupton, 101 Fed. 462, 41 C. C. A. 462; American Graphophone Co. v. Talking-Mach. Co., 98 Fed. 729, 39 C. C. A. 245; Pelzer v. Binghamton, 95 Fed. 823, 37 C. C. A. 288; Sprague Electric R., etc., Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 95 Fed. 821, 37 C. C. A. 286; Blakey v. National Mfg. Co., 95 Fed. 136, 37 C. C. A. 27; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,879, 7 Blatch. 86; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533. The giving away of infringing articles as premiums with other goods sold is in effect a sale, and constitutes infringement. Benbow- Brammer Mfg. Co. v. Heffron-Tanner Co., 144 Fed. 429. Equitable owner of the patent is not an unauthorized user. Clmn v. Brewer, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,909, 2 Curt. 506. Licensee may infringe by violating condi- tions. Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656. Refusal of patentee to furnish device does not authorize infringement. Masseth v. Rei- ber, 59 Fed. 614. Importation. Importation of the invention is infringement. Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697, 10 S. Ct. 378, 33 L. ed. 787 [reversing 33 Fed. 279, 13 Sawy. 17] ; Dickerson v. Tin- ling, 84 Fed. 192, 28 C. C. A. 139 ; Dickerson v. Matheson, 57 Fed. 524, 6 C. C. A. 466; Featherstone v. Ormonde Cycle Co., 53 Fed. 110; Neilson v. Betts, L. R. 5 H. L. 1, 40 L. J. Ch. 317, 19 Wkly. Rep. 1121; Von Hey- den v. Neustadt, 14 Ch. D. 230, 50 L. J. Ch. 126, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 300, 28 Wkly. Rep. 496; Emslie v. Boursier, L. R. 9 Eq. 217, 39 L. J. Ch. 328, 18 Wkly. Rep. 665. Where patentee or his agent sells articles abroad they may be imported without infringement. Holiday v. Mattheson, 24 Fed. 185, 23 Blatchf. 239. One who purchases abroad from the pat- entee and imports is not an infringer. Betts v. Willmott, L. R. 6 Ch. 239, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 188, 19 Wkly. Rep. 369; Saccharin Corp. v. Reitmeyer, [1900] 2 Ch. 659, 69 L. J. Ch. 761, 83 L. T. Rep. N. S. 397, 49 Wkly. Rep. iyy * Shipping parts to foreign country for use there in making the invention is no infringe- ment. Bullock Electric, etc., Co. v. Westing- house Electric, etc., Co., 129 Fed. 105, 63 C. C. A. 607. Use on foreign vessel in port is not in- fringement. Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. (U. S.) 183, 15 L. ed. 595. Use on United States vessel at sea is in- fringement. Gardiner v. Howe, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,219, 2 Cliff. 462. Use of armor on United States war vessel is not infringement. Heaton v. Quintard, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,311, 7 Blatchf. 73. Use pending application is not infringe- ment. Brill v. St. Louis Car Co., 80 Fed. 909. Selling article made on patented machine is not infringement. Simpson v. Wilson, 4 How. (U. S.) 709, 11 L. ed. 1169. A mere agreement to buy infringing arti- cles is no infringement. Keplinger v. De Young, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 358, 6 L. ed. 341. Use after expiration of patent is not in- fringement. Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Carpen- ter, 133 Fed. 238 [affirmed in 143 Fed. 976, 75 C. C. A. 162]. Selling after expiration of patent is not infringement. British Insulated Wire Co. v. Dublin United Tramways Co., [1900] 1 Ir, 287. In Canada the purchaser and user of arti- cles made in derogation of the patent is an infringer. Toronto Auer Light Co. v. Col- ling, 31 Ont. 18. 88. Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, etc., Mfg. Co., 144 U. S. 238, 12 S. Ct. 641, 36 L. ed. 419; Jones v. Morehead, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 155, 17 L. ed. 662 ; McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How. (U. S.) 402, 15 L. ed. 930; W T ilson v. Town- ley Shingle Co., 125 Fed. 491, 60 C. C. A. 327; Marsh v. Quick-Meal Stove Co., 51 Fed. 203 ; Challenge Corn-Planter Co. v. Gearhardt, 46 Fed. 768 ; Lee v. Upson, etc., Co., 42 Fed. 530; Webster v. Ovens, 39 Fed. 388; Simon v. Neumann, 20 Fed. 196; Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Kunkle, 14 Fed. 732; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis Wire-Goods Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 72, 3 Ban. & A. 77, 12 Off. Gaz. 940 ; Byam V. Eddy, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,263, 2 Blatchf. 521, 24 Vt. 666; Rich v. Lippincott, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,758, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 31; Smith v. Clark, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,027, Brunn. Col. Cas. 345 ; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058. 89. Johnston v. Woodbury, 109 Fed. 567, 48 C. C. A. 550; Swain v. Holyoke Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 154, 48 C. C. A. 265; American Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seabury Gun, etc., Co., 105 Fed. 83, 48 C. C. A. 241; Hoskins v. Matthes, 108 Fed. 404, 47 C. C. A. 434; Goss Printing-Press Co. v. Scott, 108 Fed. 253, 47 C. C. A. 302; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. [XIII, A, 1] 972 [30 Cye.] PATENTS 2. MAKING, USING, OR SELLING. Infringement may consist either in making, using, or selling the invention, or in all three. 90 3. ARTICLE MADE BEFORE PATENT. Any person who purchases of the inventor, or with his knowledge and consent, constructs an article embodying the invention prior to his application for patent has the right to use and sell the particular article after a patent is granted. 91 4. EXPERIMENTAL USE. 92 The making of the patented invention for amusement or scientific investigation with no intent of using it practically is not an actionable infringement; but it is otherwise where the thing made is sold or put into actual use. 93 v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 107 Fed. 277, 46 C. C. A. 263 ; Pelzer v. Dale Co., 106 Fed. 989, 46 C. C. A. 83; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 106 Fed. 935, 46 C. C. A. 53; Solvay Process Co. v. Michigan Alkali Co., 90 Fed. 818, 33 C. C. A. 285; Chuse v. Ide, 89 Fed. 491, 32 C. C. A. 260; Antisdel v. Chicago Hotel Cabinet Co., 89 Fed. 308, 32 C. C. A. 216; Kelly v. Clow, 89 Fed. 297, 32 C. C. A. 205; Talbot v. Fear, 89 Fed. 197, 32 C. C. A. 186; Clisby v. Reese, 88 Fed. 645, 32 C. C. A. 80; Eastman Co. v. Getz, 84 Fed. 458, 28 C. C. A. 459; Soehner v. Favorite Stove, etc., Co., 84 Fed. 182, 28 C. C. A. 317; Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co., 81 Fed. 201, 26 C. C. A. 330; Crossley v. Duggan, 79 Fed. 992, 25 C. C. A. 681; Matheson v. Camp- bell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384. 90. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 S. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768 ; Tuttle v. Matthews, 28 Fed. 98 ; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Haselden v. Ogden, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,190, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 378. Making without use or sale is infrmgement. Carter Crume Co. v. American Sales Book Co., 124 Fed. 903; Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Land, 49 Fed. 936; Ketchum Harvester Co. v. Johnson Harvester Co., 8 Fed. 586, 19 Blatchf. 367; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,558, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,270, 1 Bond 126, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600, 1 Gall. 429, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28. Use for personal benefit or convenience is infringement without sale. Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, 7 S. Ct. 1090, 30 L. ed. 1074; United Nickel Co. v. Central Pac. R. Co., 36 Fed. 186; Andrews v. Cross, 8 Fed. 269, 19 Blatchf. 294. A single sale is an infringement. Hutter v. De Q. Bottle Stopper Co., 128 Fed. 283, 62 C. C. A. 652. Sale to agent of patentee is infringement. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 118 Fed. 852. Sale by sheriff on execution is not an ac- tionable infringement. Sawin v. Guild, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,391, 1 Gall. 485, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 47. Any use is infringement. Betts v. Neilson, 3 De G. J. & S. 82, 11 Jur. N. S. 679, *34 L. J. Ch. 537, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 719, 6 Wkly. Rep. 221, 13 Wkly. Rep. 1028, 68 Eng. Ch. 63, 46 Eng. Reprint 569. Making and offering for sale is infringe- [XIII, A, 2] ment even without actual sale. Oxley v. Holden, 8 C. B. N. S. 666, 30 L. J. C. P. 68, 2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 464, 8 Wkly. Rep. 626, 98 E. C. L. 666. Making for sale abroad is infringement. British Motor Syndicate v. Taylor, [1901] 1 Ch. 122, 70 L. J. Ch. 21, 83 L. T. Rep. N. S. 419, 49 Wkly. Rep. 183; Goucher v. Clay- ton, 11 Jur. N. S. 462, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 111. 91. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4899 [U. S. Ccmp. St. (1901) p. 3387]; Dable Grain Shovel Co. v. Flint, 137 U. S. 41, 11 S. Ct. 8, 34 L. ed. 618; Wade v. Metcalfe, 129 U. S. 202, 9 S. Ct. 271, 32 L. ed. 661 [affirming 16 Fed. 130] ; Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. (U. S.) 202, 11 L. ed. 102; Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. 504, 1 L. R. A. 48; Duffy v. Reynolds, 24 Fed. 855. That the right must be derived directly or indirectly from the inventor see Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,156, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 268, 3 Story 402. An article made or bought without the in- ventor's consent cannot be used. Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 105; Evans v. Weiss, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,572, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 10, 2 Wash. 342; Hovey v. Stevens, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,745, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 479, 1 Woodb. & M. 290. Transfer of license. The implied license is not transferable. Thomson v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 250, 3 C. C. A. 518. Articles properly obtained before patent may be used after extension. Paper Bag Mach. Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 26 L. ed. 959; Simpson v. Wilson, 4 How. (U. S.) 709, 11 L. ed. 1169; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141. Canada. Pat. Act, Rev. St. Can. c. 61, 61, does not authorize one who has, with the full consent of the patentee, manufactured and sold a patented article for less than a year before the issue of the patent, to continue the manufacture after the issue thereof, but merely permits him to use and sell the arti- cles manufactured by him prior thereto. Fowell v. Chown, 25 Ont. 71. And see Victor Sporting Goods Co. v. Harold A. Wilson Co., 24 Can. L. T. Occ. Notes 211, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 570, 2 Ont. Wkly. Rep. 465, 3 Ont. Wkly. Rep. 496. 92. Experiments and incomplete inventions as showing prior knowledge or use see supra, III, C, 4, c, e. 93. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Derbeklow, PATENTS [30 Cye.] 973 5. KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT OF iNFRiNGER. 94 A party is no less an infringer because he did not intend to infringe or because he did not know of the patent. 95 His lack of knowledge or intent can have no effect save possibly on the amount of damages. 96 6. IDENTITY OF INFRINGING DEVICE 97 a. In General. It is not necessary that every feature of the invention disclosed in the patent be used in order to consti- tute infringement, but it is sufficient that the essential features as set forth in the claim are taken. Substantial identity is all that is required. If the essence of the invention is taken, variations in detail will not avoid infringement. 98 Mere 87 Fed. 997; Clerk v. Tannage Patent Co., 84 Fed. 643, 28 C. C. A. 501 ; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. Underwood, 73 Fed. 206; Albright v. Cellu- loid Harness Trimming Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 147, 2 Ban. & A. 629, 12 Off. Gaz. 227; Pop- penhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279, 4 Blatchf. 493, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181; Pop- penhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62. But see United Tel. Co. v. Sharpies, 29 Ch. D. 164, 54 L. J. Ch. 633, 52 L. T. Rep. N. S. 384, 33 Wkly. Rep. 444, holding that use for experiment and instruction is in- fringement. 94. Knowledge of one whose infringement is contributory see infra, XIII, B. 95. A. B. Dick Co. v. Henry, 149 Fed. 424; Pardy v. J. D. Hooker Co., 148 Fed. 631, 78 C. C. A. 403 ; Thompson v. N. T. Bushnell Co., 96 Fed. 238, 37 C. C. A. 456 [reversing 88 Fed. 81]; National Cash-Register Co. v. Le- land, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372; Mac- Knight 17. McNiece, 64 Fed. 115; Grosvenor 17. Dashiell, 62 Fed. 584; Smith v. Stewart, 55 Fed. 481 {.affirmed in 58 Fed. 580, 7 C. C. A. 380] ; Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. American Buckle, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 703; Pirkl v. Smith, 42 Fed. 410; Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. 169; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gil- lett, 31 Fed. 809; Matthews v. Skates, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,740, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 44; Wright v. Hitchcock, L. R. 5 Exch. 37, 39 L. J. Exch. 97; Stead i/. Anderson, 4 C. B. 806, 11 Jur. 877, 16 L. J. C. P. 250, 56 E. C. L. 806; Heath v. Unwin, II Jur. 420, 16 L. J. Ch. 283, 15 Sim. 552, 60 Eng. Reprint 733; Curtis v. Platt, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 245. Warning inf ringers.- It is not incumbent upon patentees to warn infringers. Proctor v. Bennis, 36 Ch. D. 740, 57 L. J. Ch. 11, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 662, 36 Wkly. Rep. 456. An erroneous decision holding patent void does not relieve other infringers from lia- bility. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 S. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 664. 96. Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Regina Music-Box Co. v. Paillard, 85 Fed. 644; Burdett v. Estey, 3 Fed. 566, 19 Blatchf. 1. And see infra, XIII, C, 12, a, (n), (D). 97. Change of form as involving invention see supra, III, E, 9. 98. Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 S. Ct. 409, 45 L. ed. 586 [affirming 92 Fed. 146, 34 C. C. A. 248] ; Driven Well Cases, 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 L. ed. 1064; Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64; Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Grouse-Hinds Electric Co., 146 Fed. 539 {.re- versed on other grounds in 152 Fed. 437, 81 C. C. A. 579] ; Hillard v. Fisher Book Type- writer Co., 159 Fed. 439; Wagner Typewriter Co. i?. Wyckoff, 151 Fed. 585, 81 C. C. A. 129; Smyth Mfg. Co. v. Sheridan, 144 Fed. 423; International Time Recording Co. v. Dey, 142 Fed. 736, 74 C. C. A. 68 ; Jewell Filter Co. v. Jackson, 140 Fed. 340, 72 C. C. A. 304; Cazier 17. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 654, 71 C. C. A. 104; Solmson v. Bredin, 136 Fed. 187, 69 C. C. A. 203 {.affirming 132 Fed. 161] ; Hutter 17. De Q. Bottle Stopper Co., 128 Fed. 283, 62 C. C. A. 652; Van Epps v. International Paper Co., 124 Fed. 542 ; H. C. White Co. 17. Walbridge, 118 Fed. 166; Cimi- otti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co., 115 Fed. 498, 53 C. C. A. 230; Morrison v. Sonn, 111 Fed. 172; Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Duplex Printing- Press Co., 86 Fed. 315; Morgan v. Maul, 84 Fed. 336; Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co., 75 Fed. 567; Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. Martin Anti-Fire Car Heater Co., 71 Fed. 697; Shaver v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. 68; May v. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Globe Nail Co. v. U. S. Horse Nail Co., 19 Fed. 819; Coupe v. Weatherhead, 16 Fed. 673; Ward v. Grand Detour Plow Co., 14 Fed. 696; Crompton v. Knowles, 7 Fed. 204; Holly v. Vergennes Mach. Co., 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327; American Mfg. Co. v. Lane, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 304, 3 Ban. & A. 268, 14 Blatchf. 438, 15 Off. Gaz. 421; Blanchard v. Eldridge, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,509; Blanch- ard v. Reeves, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,515, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 103 ; Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,529, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 609; Burr v. Prentiss, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,194; Byam v. Eddy, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,263, 2 Blatchf. 521, 24 Vt. 666; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Collender v. Came, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,999, 2 Ban. & A. 412, 4 Cliff. 393, 10 Off. Gaz. 467 ; Conover v. Roach, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,125, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; Converse v. Cannon, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,144, 2 Woods 7, 9 Off. Gaz. 105; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Davis 17. Palmer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,645, 2 Brock. 298, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 518; Fuller 17. Yentzer, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,151, 1 Ban. & A. 520, 6 Biss. 203; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Henderson 17. Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,351, 2 Ban. & A. [XIII, A, 6, a] 974 [30 Cye.] PATENTS differences in form are immaterial," unless the invention claimed resides in the form. Where this is the case substantial identity of form is necessary. 1 To constitute infringement the principle of operation must be the same. 2 and there must be substantial identity of means and not merely of function or result. 3 604, 12 Off. Gaz. 4; Howes v. McNeal, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,789, 3 Ban. & A. 376, 15 Blatchf. 103, 15 Off. Gaz. 608; Lorillard v. McDowell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,510, 2 Ban. & A. 531, 11 Off. Gaz. 640, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 461; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240; Odiorne v. Winkley, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,432, 2 Gall. 51, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 52; Page u. Ferry, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,662, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298; Parker v. Haworth, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,738, 4 McLean 370, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 725; Parker r. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Pitts v. Edmonds, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,191, 1 Biss. 168, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 52; Root v. Ball, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,035, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 513, 4 McLean 177; Sickels t-. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Smith v. Downing, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,036, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Storrs r. Howe, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,495, 2 Ban. & A. 420, 4 Cliff. 388, 10 Off. Gaz. 421; Thorn v. Worthing Skating Rink Co., 6 Ch. D. 415 note; Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. Came, 18 Quebec Super. Ct. 44. Theory is immaterial if there is substan- tial identity of things. Foss v. Herbert, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,957, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31. 99. Busch v. Jones, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 23; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601 ; Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Dela- ware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64; Ferry- Hallock Co. v. Hallock, 142 Fed. 172; Nathan v. Howard, 143 Fed. 889, 75 C. C. A. 97 [affirmed in 160 Fed. 928] ; Rood v. Evans, 92 Fed. 371; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 86 Fed. 917, 30 C. C. A. 487; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22* C. C. A. 203 [affirming 69 Fed. 837]; Kilmer Mfg. Co. v. Griswold, 62 Fed. 119 [reversed on other grounds in 67 Fed. 1017, 15 C. C. A. 161]; Jones v. Holman, 58 Fed. 973 [reversed on other grounds in 61 Fed. 105, 9 C. C. A. 385] ; National Folding- Box, etc., Co. v. American Paper Pail, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 488; American Paper Pail, etc., Co. v. National Folding Box, etc., Co., 51 Fed. 229, 2 C. C. A. 165; Chicopee Folding-Box Co. v. Nugent, 41 Fed. 139 ; Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Frame, 24 Fed. 596; Grier v. Castle, 17 Fed. 523; Colligiion V. Hayes, 8 Fed. 912; Blanchard v. Puttman, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,514, 2 Bond 84, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 186; Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397 ; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Case v. Brown, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,488, 1 Biss. 382, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268 [affirmed in 2 Wall. 320, 17 L. ed. 817] ; Foss v. Herbert, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,957, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31; Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,671, 4 Cliff. 88, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Howe [XIII, A, 6, a] v. Williams, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,778, 2 Cliff. 245, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,116, 1 Bond 259, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Potter v. Wilson, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,342, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 102; Sargent v. Larned, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,364, 2 Curt. 340; Sickels v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819, McAllister 48; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mat- thiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Van Hook v. Pen- dleton, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,851, 1 Blatchf. 187, Fish. Pat. Rep. 120. Making in two parts instead of one will not avoid infringement. Hammond Buckle Co. v. Hathaway, 48 Fed. 834; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 21 Fed. 567; Mabie v. Haskell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,653, 2 Cliff. 507. See Western Tube Co. v. Rainear, 156 Fed. 49 [affirmed in 159 Fed. 431]. Difference in size will not avoid infringe- ment. Rogers v. Sargent, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,020, 7 Blatchf. 507. 1. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S.' 112, 26 L. ed. 639; Werner v. King, 96 U. S. 218, 24 L. ed. 613; Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64 [affirmed in 160 Fed. 928] ; Polsdorfer r. St. Louis Wooden- Ware Works, 37 Fed. 57 ; Toepfer v. Goetz, 31 Fed. 913; Newark Mach. Co. v. Hargett, 28 Fed. 567; Scott v. Evans, 11 Fed. 726. 2. Peerless Rubier Mfg. Co. v. White, 118 Fed. 827, 55 C. C. A. 502; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Spaulding, 110 Fed. 393, 49 C. C. A. 88; Brett v. Quintard, 10 Fed. 741, 20 Blatchf. 320; White v. Noyes, 2 Fed. 782; May v. Johnson County, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,334 ; Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,896, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239. 3. Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westing- house, 170 U. S. 537, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. ed. 1136 [reversing 70 Fed. 816, 17 C. C. A. 430]; Masseth v. Larkin, 119 Fed. 171, 56 C. C. A. 167 [affirming 111 Fed. 409] ; Pitts- burg Meter Co. v. Pittsburg Supply Co., 109 Fed. 644, 48 C. C. A. 580; Taber Bas-Reliof Photograph Co. v. Marceau, 87 Fed. 871; Dickinson v. A. Plamondon Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. 455 ; American Pin Co. v. Oakville Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 313, 3 Blatchf. 190; Burden v. Corn- ing, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,143, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 477; Burr v. Duryee, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,190, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 275 [affirmed in 1 Wall. 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661]; Lee v. Blandy, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,182, 1 Bond 361, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; Morris v. Barrett, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,827, 1 Bond 254, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461 ; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,625, 1 Ban. & A. 229, 12 Blatchf. 68, 5 Off. Gaz. 697 [affirmed in 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719]; Singer v. Walmsley, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,900, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 975 b. Limitation of Claims. Each claim of the patent is separately considered in determining infringement, 4 and while a claim describing the invention in broad terms may be infringed by devices differing in many respects from that of the patent, 5 a claim including a distinct limitation to a particular feature is not infringed unless that feature is used. 6 e. Diversity of Use. The use of an invention for an analogous purpose is infringement, 7 but use for a non-analogous purpose where invention is necessary to procure its adaptability is not infringement. 8 d. Combination. A claim to a combination of old elements, materials, or parts is not infringed unless every element, material, or part mentioned in the claim, or its equivalent, is used in the same relation; 9 and in the application of this rule it is immaterial that one or more of the elements specified in the claim are not of Identity of means, operation, and result is necessary. American Can Co. v. Hickmott Asparagus Canning Co., 137 Fed. 86. 4. Mast v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 327, 27 C. C. A. 191; Holloway v. Dow, 54 Fed. 511; Foss v. Herbert, 9 Fed. Gas. No. 4,957, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600. 5. General Electric Co. v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 117 Fed. 613; Tuscarawas Mfg. Co. v. Cole, 109 Fed. 161; Thomson-Houston Elec- tric Co. v. Lorain Steel Co., 103 Fed. 641 [affirmed in 107 Fed. 711, 46 C. C. A. 593]; Hatch Storage Battery Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 100 Fed. 975; Parsons v. Seelye, 100 Fed. 455, 40 C. C. A. 486 [reversing 92 Fed. 1005] ; American Paper Barrel Co. v. Laraway, 28 Fed. 141; Fricke v. Hum, 22 Fed. 302; Gibson v. Betts, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,390, 1 Blatchf. 163, Fish. Pat. Rep. 91. 6. Lane v. Levi, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 168; Hubbell v. U. S., 179 U. S. 77, 21 S. Ct. 24, 45 L. ed. 95; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U. S. Ill, 14 S. Ct. 48, 37 L. ed. 1019 ; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. ed. 800; Anderson Foundry, etc., Works v. Potts, 108 Fed. 379, 47 C. C. A. 409; Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 107 Fed. 716, 46 C. C. A. 599; Lepper v. Randall, 105 Fed. 975; Ross-Moyer Mfg. Co. v. Randall, 104 Fed. 355, 43 C. C. A. 578 ; Union Steam-Pump Co. v. Battle Creek Steam-Pump Co., 104 Fed. 337, 43 C. C. A. 560; Starrett v. J. Stevens Arms, etc., Co., 96 Fed. 244; A. J. Phillips Co. v. Owosso Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. 176; Foos Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Engine, etc., Co., 49 Fed. 641, 1 C. C. A. 410 [affirming 44 Fed. 595] ; Heine Safety Boiler Co. V. Anheuser- Busch Brewing Assoc., 43 Fed. 786 [a/firmed in 154 U. S. 504, 14 S. Ct. 1146, 38 L. ed. 1083] ; Newark Mach. Co. v. Hargett, 28 Fed. 567; Osceola Mfg. Co. v. Pie, 28 Fed. 83; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Pratt, 21 Fed. 313; Mc- Kay v. Stowe, 17 Fed. 516; Cornell v. Little- John, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,238, 2 Ban. & A. 324, 9 Off. Gaz. 837, 922; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,751, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468, 1 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 374. Claim to an article including limitations as to the process of making it is not in- fringed by another process. Expanded Metal Co. v. St. Louis Bd. of Education, 103 Fed. 287. 7. Sanitary Fireproofing, etc., Co. v. Sprick- erhoff, 139 Fed. 801, 71 C. C. A. 565; West- inghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Roberts, 125 Fed. 6; Williams Patent Crusher, etc., Co. v. St. Louis Pulverizer Co., 104 Fed. 795; Red Jacket Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 82 Fed. 432, 27 C. C. A. 204 ; Long v. Pope Mfg. Co., 75 Fed. 835, 21 C. C. A. 533; Thompson v. Gilder- sleeve, 34 Fed. 43 ; Cincinnati Ice-Mach. Co. v. Foss Schneider Brewing Co., 31 Fed. 469; Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. 914; American Wood- Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 320, 6 Blatchf. 27, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362 [affirmed in 23 Wall. 566, 23 L. ed. 31] : Mabie v. Haskell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,653, 2 Cliff. 507; Pike v. Potter, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,162, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 55; Young v. Lipp- man, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,160, 9 Blatchf. 277, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 230, 2 Off. Gaz. 249, 342; Cannington v. Nuttall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205, 40 L. J. Ch. 739. 8. Gary Mfg. Co. v. Standard Metal Strap Co., 120 Fed. 945, 57 C. C. A. 235 ; Johnson v. McCurdy, 108 Fed. 671, 47 C. C. A. 577; Thomson Meter Co. v. National Meter Co., 106 Fed. 519; Palmer v. De Yongh, 90 Fed. 281; MacColl v. Knowles Loom Works, 87 Fed. 727; Heap v. Tremont, etc., Mills, 82 Fed. 449, 27 C. C. A. 316; Boston, etc., Elec- tric St. R. Co. 17. Bemis Car Box Co., 80 Fed. 287, 25 C. C. A. 420; Long v. Pope Mfg. Co., 75 Fed. 835, 21 C. C. A. 533; Hoe v. Knap, 27 Fed. 204; Osmer v. J. B. Sickles Saddlery Co., 23 Fed. 724; Judd v. Babcock, 8 Fed. 605; Brown v. Rubber Step Mfg. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,028, 3 Ban. & A. 232, 13 Off. Gaz. 369; Stuart v. Shantz, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,556, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 35, 2 Off. Gaz. 524, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 376; Tatham v. Le Roy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,762; Higgs v. Goodwin, E. B. 6 E. 529, 5 Jur. N. S. 97, 27 L. J. Q. B. 421, 96 E. C. L. 529. 9. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Office Spe- cialty Mfg. Co., 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 81, 37 L. ed. 1059; Garratt v. Seibert, 131 U. S. appendix cxv, 21 L. ed. 956; Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall R. Signal Co., 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct. 1069, 29 L. ed. 96; Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906 [affirming 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217] ; Mc- Murray v. Mallory, 111 U. S. 97, 4 S. Ct. 375, 28 L. ed. 365 [affirming 5 Fed. 593, 4 [XIII, A, 6, d] 976 [30 Cye.] PATENTS the essence of the invention. Every element claimed must be regarded as Hughes 265] ; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288, 24 L. ed. 103; Rees v. Gould, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 187, 21 L. ed. 39; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860; Stimpson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 10 How. (U. S.) 329, 13 L. ed. 441; Consolidated Engine Stop Co. v. Landers, 160 Fed. 79; H. F. Brainmer Mfg. Co. v. Witte Hardware Co., 159 Fed. 726; Ajax Forge Co. v. Morden Frog, etc., Works, 156 Fed. 591] ; American Chocolate Mach. Co. v. Helmstetter, 142 Fed. 978, 74 C. C. A. 240; O. H. Jewell Filter Co. v. Jackson, 140 Fed. 340, 72 C. C. A. 304; American Can Co. v. Hickmott Asparagus Canning Co., 137 Fed. 86; Levy v. Harris, 130 Fed. 711, 65 C. C. A. 113; American Fur Refining Co. v. Cimiotti Unhairing Mach. Co., 123 Fed. 869, 59 C. C. A. 357 [affirmed in 198 U. S. 399, 25 S. Ct. 697, 49 L. ed. 1100] ; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Derbohlaw, 115 Fed. 510, 53 C. C. A. 164; Pittsburg Meter Co. v. Pittsburg Supply Co., 109 Fed. 644, 48 C. C. A. 580; Wellman v. Midland Steel Co., 106 Fed. 221; Starrett v. J. Stevens Arms, etc., Co., 100 Fed. 93, 40 C. C. A. 289; Nor- ton v. Wheaton, 97 Fed. 636; Thompson v. Second Ave. Traction Co., 89 Fed. 321 ; Camp- bell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v< Duplex Print- ing-Press Co., 86 Fed. 315; Kansas City Hay- Press Co. v. Devol, 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578; Carter Mach. Co. v. Hanes, 78 Fed. 346, 24 C. C. A. 128 ; Muller v. Lodge, etc., Mach. Tool Co., 77 Fed. 621, 23 C. C. A. 357 ; Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co., 77 Fed. 432, 23 C. C. A. 223 [.affirming 63 Fed. 986] ; P. H. Murphy Mfg. Co. v. Excelsior Car-Roof Co., 76 Fed. 965, 22 C. C. A. 658 ; Engle Sanitary, etc., Co. t>. Elwood, 73 Fed. 484; Brown v. Stilwell, etc., Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 731, 741, 6 C. C. A. 528; Ashton Valve Co. v. Coale Muffler, etc., Co., 50 Fed. 100 [affirmed in 52 Fed. 314, 3 C. C. A. 98] ; Ross v. Montana Union R. Co., 45 Fed. 424; Innis v. Oil City Boiler Works, 41 Fed. 788; Tatum v. Greg- ory, 41 Fed. 142; Ott v. Earth, 32 Fed. 89; Thoens v. Israel, 31 Fed. 556; Blades v. Rand, 27 Fed. 93 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 631, 10 S. Ct. 1065, 34 L. ed. 553] ; Saladee v. Racine Wagon, etc., Co., 20 Fed. 686; Gould v. Spicers, 20 Fed. 317; Howe v. Neemes, 18 Fed. 40; Matteson v. Caine, 17 Fed. 525, 8 Sawy. 498; Rowell v. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Bis*. 217 [affirmed in 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906] ; Fourot v. Hawes, 3 Fed. 456; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Bell v. Daniels, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,247, 1 Bond 212, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 372; Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,946, Fish. Pat. Rep. 72, 4 Mc- Lean 70; Burr v. Duryee, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,190, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 275 [affirmed in 1 Wall. 531, 17 L. ed. 650, 660, 661] ; Cromp- ton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Howe v. Abbott, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,766, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 99, 2 Story 190; Huggins v. Hubby, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,839; McCormick v. Manny, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,724, 6 McLean 539 [affirmed in 20 How. 402, 15 L. ed. 930] ; Nicholson Pavement Co. [XIII, A, 6, d] v. Hatch, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,251, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 432, 4 Sawy. 692; Pitts v. Wemple, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,195, 6 McLean 558; Rich v. Close, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,757, 8 Blatchf. 41, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 279; Rollhaus v. Mc- Pherson, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,026; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058; Berdan Fire-Arms Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 25 Ct. Cl. 355 [affirmed in 156 U. S. 552, 15 S. Ct. 420, 39 L. ed. 530]; Pacific Submarine, etc., Proof Wall Co. v. U. S., 19 Ct. Cl. 234; Dudgeon v. Thomson, 3 App. Cas. 34; Clark v. Adie, 2 App. Cas. 315, 46 L. J. Ch. 585, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 923; Curtis v. Platt, L. R. 1 H. L. 337, 35 L. J. Ch. 852; Parkes v. Stevens, L. R. 8 Eq. 358, 38 L. J. Ch. 627, 17 Wkly. Rep. 846 [affirmed in L. R. 5 Ch. 36, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635, 18 Wkly. Rep. 233] ; Saxby v. Clunes, 43 L. J. Excli. 228; White v. Fenn, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 505, 15 Wkly. Rep. 348. Similarity of result not sufficient to con- stitute infringement. Westinghouse v. Boy- den Power-Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. ed. 1136; Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 2 S. Ct. 819, 27 L. ed. 601; Jenkins v. Mahoney, 135 Fed. 550 [reversed on other grounds in 138 Fed. 404, 70 C. C. A. 662]; Norton v. Wheaton, 97 Fed. 636. For cases holding that there was no in- fringement see Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U. S. Ill, 14 S. Ct. 48, 37 L. ed. 1019; Gordon v. Warder, 150 U. S. 47, 14 S. Ct. 32, 37 L. ed. 992; Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U. S. 313, 10 S. Ct. 98, 33 L. ed. 382; Sharp v. Riessner, 119 U. S. 631, 7 S. Ct. 417, 30 L. ed. 507; Bridge v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 105 U. S. 618, 26 L. ed. 1191; Kursheedt Mfg. Co. v. Adler, 107 Fed. 488, 46 C. C. A. 422 [affirming 103 Fed. 948]; Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Seybold, 105 Fed. 978, 45 C. C. A. 152; Jones Special Mach. Co. v. Pentucket Variable Stitch Sew- ing-Mach. Co., 104 Fed. 556, 44 C. C. A. 33; Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Siegel- Cooper Co., 103 Fed. 489; Whitaker Cement Co. t\ Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co., 95 Fed. 471, 37 C. C. A. 151; Risdon Iron, etc., Works v. Trent, 92 Fed. 375 [modified in 102 Fed. 635, 42 C. C. A. 529] ; Kansas City Hay- Press Co. v. Devol, 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578; Babcock v. Clarkson, 58 Fed. 581; Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 55 Fed. 409, 5 C. C. A. 154; Douglas v. Abraham, 50 Fed. 420; Stauf- fer v. Spangler, 50 Fed. 84; Foos Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Engine, etc., Co., 49 Fed. 641, 1 C. C. A. 410; Challenge Corn-Planter Co. v. Gearhardt, 46 Fed. 768; Joliet Mfg. Co. v. Keystone Mfg. Co., 39 Fed. 798; Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 28 Fed. 850; Bucking- ham v. Porter, 26 Fed. 759, 10 Sawy. 289; Crompton v. Knowles, 7 Fed. 199; Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agricultural Implement Mfg Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,436, 2 Ban. & A. 519, 1 Hughes 59, 11 Off. Gaz. 420; Merriam v. Drake, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,461, 9 Blatchf. 336, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 259; Wheeler v. Simpson, PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 977 material, although it is not so in fact. 10 A patentee will not be heard to deny the materiality of any element included in his claim. 11 When parts are substituted they must be equivalents to constitute infringement, 12 and they must be combined in the same way. 13 While, as already shown, a patent for a combination is not infringed if any one of the elements is omitted, a mere change of form or loca- tion, or sequence of the elements, which does not change the essence of the com- bination, will not avoid infringement. 14 So where some of the parts of the com- bination are new, and those parts are taken and used in the same manner, but with different things from the rest of the combination patented, and a part of the patented invention is taken although the whole is not, it is an infringement to that extent. 15 e. Process. A claim to an art or process is not infringed except by the use of all of the steps or their equivalents and in the order stated. 16 And it is well 20 Fed. Gas. No. 17,500, 1 Ban. & A. 420, 6 Off. Gaz. 435; Carter v. Hamilton, 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 172; Sylvester v. Masson, 12 Ont. App. 335. 10. Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 S. Ct. 1, 39 L. ed. 64 ; Union Water Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332, 25 L. ed. 1024; Levy v. Harris, 124 Fed. 69 [affirmed in 135 Fed. 1023] ; Pittsburg Meter Co. v. Pittsburg Supply Co., 109 Fed. 644, 48 C. C. A. 580; Kinzel v. Luttrell Brick Co., 67 Fed. 926, 15 C. C. A. 82; Rowell v. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217 [affirmed in 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906]. 11. Eames v. Godfrey, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 78, 17 L. ed. 547; Adam v. Folger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. C. A. 540. 12. Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. American Road Mach. Co., 145 Fed. 923, 76 C. C. A. 461; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Fed. 652, 48 d C. A. 588; Brammer v. Schroeder, 106 Fed. 918, 46 C. C. A. 41; National Hol- low Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake- Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co., 99 Fed. 90, 39 C. C. A. 426; Burdett v. Estey, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,146, 4 Ban. & A. 141, 16 Blatchf. 105; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Densmore v. Schofield, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,809, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148. 13. Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,406, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285; Tatham v. Le Roy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,760, 2 Blatchf. 474. 14. Adam v. Folger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. C. A. 540; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co., 115 Fed. 886, 53 C. C. A. 36; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341 ; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Thompson v. Sec- ond Ave. Traction Co., 93 Fed. 824, 35 C. C. A. 620; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203. 15. Thompson v. American Bank-Note Co., 35 Fed. 203; Adair v. Thayer, 4 Fed. 441, 17 Blatchf. 468; Sharp v. Tifft, 2 Fed. 697, 18 Blatchf; 132; Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,116, 1 Bond 259, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Lee v. Blandy, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,182, 1 Bond 361, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; Rose v. Sib- ley Mach. Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,051; [62] Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Lister 'v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1004, 4 Jur. N. S. 947, 27 L. J. Q. B. 295, 92 E. C. L. 1004; Newton v. Grand Junction R. Co., 5 Exch. 331 note, 20 L. J. Exch. 427 note, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 557; Sellers v. Dickinson, 5 Exch. 312, 20 L. J. Exch. 417, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 544. 16. U. S. Glass Co. v. Atlas Glass Co., 90 Fed. 724, 33 C. C. A. 254; Kennedy v. Solar Refining Co., 69 Fed. 715; Brush Electric Co. v. Electrical Accumulator Co., 47 Fed. 48 [modified in 52 Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682]; Hatch v. Towne, 35 Fed. 139; Royer v. Chi- cago Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 853 ; Arnold v. Phelps, 20 Fed. 315; Heller v. Bauer, 19 Fed. 96; Cotter v. New Haven Copper Co., 13 Fed. 234; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 10 Fed. 479; Hudson v. Draper, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,834, 4 Cliff. 178, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 256; Unwin v. Heath, 16 C. B. 713, 81 E. C. L. 713, 5 H. L. Cas. 505, 10 Eng. Reprint 997, 25 L. J. C. P. 8; Patent Bottle Envelope Co. v. Sey- mer, 5 C. B. N. S. 164, 5 Jur. N. S. 174, 28 L. J. C. P. 22, 94 E. C. L. 164. Identity of result is not sufficient. Schwartz v. Housman, 88 Fed. 519; Merrill v. Yeomans, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,472, 1 Ban. & A. 47, Holmes 331, 5 Off. Gaz. 268 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 568, 24 L. ed. 235]. But similarity of result may indicate iden- tity of process. Hemolin Co. v. Harway Dye- wood, etc., Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 483 [affirmed in 138 Fed. 54, 70 C. C. A. 480]. Sufficiency of substantial identity. Abso- lute identity is not necessary, but only sub- stantial identity. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cam- bria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968 [reversing 96 Fed. 850] ; Burdon Wire, etc., Co. v. Williams, 128 Fed. 927; Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pittsburg Re- duction Co., 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636; U. S. Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 89 Fed. 343 [reversed on other grounds in 90 Fed. 829, 33 C. C. A. 387]; New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Elmira Waterworks Co., 82 Fed. 459, 83 Fed. 1013; New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls Waterworks Co., 80 Fed. 924, 26 C. C. A. 252, 77 Fed. 900: American Bell Tel. Co. v. South- ern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 795 ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 31 Fed. 904; Gary [XIII, A, 6, e] 978 [30 Cye.] PATENTS settled that the purchaser and user of an article made by the process is not an infringer. 17 f. Composition. 18 A claim to an article or substance composed of a particular ingredient or combination of ingredients is infringed by an article having the same characteristics and composed of the same or equivalent ingredients. 19 The v. Wolff, 24 Fed. 139, 23 Blatchf. 92; Gott- fried v. Bartholomae, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,632, 3 Ban. & A. 308, 8 Biss. 219, 6 Reporter 390, 13 Off. Gaz. 1128; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675; Jones v. Merrill, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,481, 8 Off. Gaz. 401 ; Roberts v. Roter, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,912, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 295; United Nickel Co. v. Keith, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,408, 1 Ban. & A. 44, Holmes 328, 5 Off. Gaz. 272; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,592, 2 Bond 45, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 157. Additions which do not essentially vary the process do not avoid infringement. Ford Morocco Co. v. Tannage Patent Co., 84 Fed. 644, 28 C. C. A. 503 ; Clerk v. Tannage Patent Co., 84 Fed. 643, 28 C. C. A. 501; Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Habermann Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 375; Maryland Hominy, etc., Co. v. Dorr, 46 Fed. 773. Substitution of equivalent materials is infringement. Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 33 Conn. 436 ; United Nickel Co. v. Cen- tral Pac. R. Co., 36 Fed. 186; Poppenhuseii v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,280, 5 Blatchf. 46, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213. Process held not infringed see California Artificial Stone Paving -Co. v. Schalicke, 119 U. S. 401, 7 S. Ct. 391, 30 L. ed. 471; Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 25 L. ed. 738; Wolff v. De Nemours, 122 Fed. 944 [affirmed in 134 Fed. 862, 67 C. C. A. 488]; Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co., 105 Fed. 63 [ affirmed in 115 Fed. 711, 53 C. C. A. 293] ; Cambria Iron Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 96 Fed. 850, 37 C. C. A. 593 ; U. S. Repair, etc., Co. v. Stand- ard Paving Co., 95 Fed. 137, 37 C. C. A. 28; Michaelis v. Larkin, 91 Fed. 778; U. S. Glass Co. v. Atlas Glass Co., 90 Fed. 724, 33 C. C. A. 254 ; Cary Mfg. Co. v. De Haven, 88 Fed. 698 ; Tabor Bas-Relief Photograph Co. v. Marceau, 87 Fed. 871; Chicago Sugar-Re- fining Co. v. Charles Pope Glucose Co., 84 Fed. 977, 28 C. C. A. 594; Philadelphia Creamery Supply Co. v. Davis, etc., Bldg., etc., Co., 84 Fed. 881, 28 C. C. A. 555; Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Carborundum Co., 83 Fed. 492 ; Jackson v. Birmingham Brass Co., 79 Fed. 801, 25 C. C. A. 196; Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Lowrey, 79 Fed. 331, 24 C. C. A. 616; Clement Mfg. Co. v. Upson, etc., Co., 50 Fed. 538; Smith v. Pittsburgh Gas Co., 42 Fed. 145; Wickwire V. Wire Fabric Co., 41 Fed. 36; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. H. Clausen, etc., Brewing Co., 39 Fed. 277; Gloucester Isinglass, etc., Co. v. Le Page, 30 Fed. 370; Globe Nail Co. v. Superior Nail Co., 27 Fed. 450 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 636, 10 S. Ct. 1068, 34 L. ed. 552] ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Comstock, 23 Fed. 38; Boneless Fish Co. v. Roberts, 12 Fed. 627; Doubleday v. Bracheo, 7 Fed. Cas. No. [XIII, A, 6, e] 4,018; Merrill v. Yeomans, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,472, 1 Ban. & A. 47, Holmes 331, 5 Off. Gaz. 268. Process held infringed see Chisholm v. John- son, 106 Fed. 191; Alvin Mfg. Co. v. Schar- ling, 100 Fed. 87 ; German- American Filter Co. v. Erdrich, 98 Fed. 300; Streator Cathe- dral Glass Co. v. Wire-Glass Co., 97 Fed. 950, 38 C. C. A. 573; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Beacon Lamp Co., 95 Fed. 462 ; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 94 Fed. 163; Simonds Rolling-Mach. Co. v. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 201 ; Celluloid Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 85 Fed. 449; Ford Morocco Co. v. Tannage Patent Co., 84 Fed. 644, 28 C. C. A. 503; Adams v. Tannage Patent Co., 81 Fed. 178, 26 C. C. A. 326; Matheson v. Campbell, 77 Fed. 280. 17. Brown v. District of Columbia, 3 Mackey (D. C.) 502; National Phonograph Co. v. Lambert Co., 125 Fed. 388 [affirmed in 142 Fed. 164, 73 C. C. A. 382] ; Welsbach Light Co. v. Union Incandescent Light Co., 101 Fed. 131, 41 C. C. A. 255; Ferris v. Batcheller, 70 Fed. 714; Durand v. Green, 60 Fed. 392 [affirmed in 61 Fed. 819, 10 C. C. A. 97] ; Anonymous, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 477. Sale of article is not an infringement of the machine which makes it. Boyd v. Mc- Alpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,748, 3 McLean, 427, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 277; Goodyear v. New Jer- sey Cent. R. Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,563, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626, 2 Wall. Jr. 356. In England the importation of articles made abroad according to the patented process is infringement. Saccharin Corp. v. Anglo-Con- tinental Chemical Works, [1901] 1 Ch. 414, 70 L. J. Ch. 194, 48 Wkly. Rep. 444 ; Elmslie v. Boursier, L. R. 9 Eq. 217, 39 L. J. Ch. 328, 18 Wkly. Rep. 665 ; Von Heyden r. Neustadt, 14 Ch. D. 230, 50 L. J. Ch. 126, 42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 300, 28 Wkly. Rep. 496. In Canada use or sale of article is infringe- ment. Toronto Auer Light Co. v. Colling, 31 Ont. 18. 18. Substitution of materials as involving invention see supra. III, E, 15. 19. Dickerson v. Maurer, 108 Fed. 233; Propfe v. Coddington, 108 Fed. 86, 47 C. C. A. 218 [affirming 105 Fed. 951]; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, 104 Fed. 802, 44 C. C. A. 201 ; Stel wagon Co. v. Chi Ids, 101 Fed. 989, 42 C. C. A. 127 ; King v. Anderson, 90 Fed. 500 ; Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co., 88 Fed. 264, 31 C. C. A. 530 [affirming 80 Fed. 519] ; American Graphophone Co. V. Leeds, 87 Fed. 873; Welsbach Light Co. v. Sunlight Incandescent Gas Lamp Co., 87 Fed. 221; Holliday v. Schulze-Berge, 78 Fed. 493; Pasteur Chamberland Filter Co. v. Funk, 52 Fed. 146; Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Lamparter, 51 Fed. 763; Vulcanite Co. v. American Co., 34 Fed. 320; Roosevelt v. Law Tel. Co., 33 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 979 addition of other ingredients to those claimed does not avoid infringement if the essential character of the compound remains the same. 20 But an addition chang- ing the character of the compound is no infringement. 21 There is no infringe- ment if an ingredient claimed is omitted, 23 although in the specifications the use of such ingredient is stated to be for a particular case only. 23 g. Substitution of Equivalents 34 (r) IN GENERAL. Infringement is not Fed. 505; Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656; Kimball v. Hess, 15 Fed. 393 ; Atlantic Giant- Powder Co. v. Goodyear, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 623, 3 Ban. & A. 161, 13 Off. Gaz. 45; Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Parker, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 625, 4 Ban. & A. 292, 16 Blatchf. 281, 16 Off. Gaz. 495; Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Rand, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 626, 4 Ban. & A. 263, 16 Blatchf. 250, 16 Off. Gaz. 87; Bryan v. Stevens, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,066a; Collender v. Came, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,999, 2 Ban. & A. 412, 4 Cliff. 393, 10 Off. Gaz. 467; Goodyear Den- tal Vulcanite Co. i/. Gardiner, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,591, 3 Cliff. 408, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 224; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Preterre, 10 Fed. Ca*. No. 5,596, 3 Ban. & A. 471, 15 Blatchf. 274, 14 Off. Gaz. 346; Hoffman v. Aronson, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,576, 8 Blatchf. 324, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456; Rumford Chem- ical Works v. Hecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,133, 2 Ban. & A. 351, 10 Off. Gaz. 289; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 50 Off. Gaz. 92; Taylor v. Archer, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,778, 8 Blatchf. 315, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 449; United Nickel Co. v. Keith, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,408, 1 Ban. & A. 44, Holmes 328, 5 Off. Gaz. 272; United Nickel Co. v. Manhattan Brass Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,410, 4 Ban. & A. 173, 16 Blatchf. 68; Woodward v. Morrison, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,008, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 357, Holmes 124, 2 Off. Gaz. 120. Equivalent ingredients are those known in the art as possessing the desired properties. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U. S. 222, 26 L. ed. 149; United Nickel Co. V. Pendleton, 15 Fed. 739, 21 Blatchf. 226; Babcock v. Judd, 1 Fed. 408; Atlantic Giant- Powder Co. v. Mowbray, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 624, 2 Ban. & A. 442, 12 Off. Gaz. No. 14, p. iii; Matthews v. Skates, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602; Woodward v. Mor- rison, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,008, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 357, Holmes 124, 2 Off. Gaz. 120. An ingredient may be equivalent, although sub- sequently discovered, if it performs no new function in the compound. Read Holliday v. Schulze-Berge, 78 Fed. 493. Where the articles or compounds are the same, there is infringement, although they are made by different processes. Maurer v. Dickerson, 113 Fed. 870, 51 C. C. A. 494; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Cochrane, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 719, 4 Ban. & A. 215, 16 Blatchf. 155; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Cummins, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 720, 4 Ban. & A. 489 ; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Hamil- ton Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. No. 721, 3 Ban. & A. 235, 13 Off. Gaz. 273; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Higgin, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 722, 3 Ban. & A. 462, 15 Blatckf. 290, 14 Off. Gaz. 414. The Baur patent, No. 451,847, for an artificial musk, in view of the disclaimer filed, limiting it to the product of the process of patent No. 416,710 to the same patentee, is not infringed by a product not shown to have been made by such process. Societe Fabriques, etc. v. Lueders, 142 Fed. 753, 74 C. C. A. 15 [affirming 135 Fed. 102]. Not equivalent ingredients. Hurlbut v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456, 9 S. Ct. 584, 32 L. ed. 1011; New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air-Ceil Covering Co., 103 Fed. 316; S. Rauh v. Guinzburg, 101 Fed. 1007, 42 C. C. A. 139; New Jersey Wire-Cloth Co. v. Merritt, 101 Fed. 460, 41 C. C. A. 460; Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co., 94 Fed. 361, 36 C. C. A, 294; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 24 C. C. A. 384; Johns Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, 77 Fed. 985, 23 C. C. A. 601; Seabury v. Johnson, 76 Fed. 456; Atlantic Dynamite Co. v. Climax Powder Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 925 ; Blumenthal v. Burrell, 53 Fed. 105, 3 C. C. A. 462 [affirming 43 Fed. 667] ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. U. S. Elec- tric Lighting Co., 47 Fed. 454 [affirmed in 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83] ; Hood v. Boston Car Spring Co., 37 Fed. 792; Western, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Rosenstock, 30 Fed. 67; Union Tubing Co. v. Patterson, 23 Fed. 79; Tucker V. Sargent, 9 Fed. 299, 19 Blatchf. 538; Ash- croft v. Rollings, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 579, 11 Off. Gaz. 879 ; Baldwin v. Schultz, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 804, 9 Blatchf. 494, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 75, 2 Off. Gaz. 315, 319; Clarke v. Johnson, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2.855, 4 Ban. & A. 403, 16 Blatchf. 495, 17 Off'. Gaz. 1401 ; Goodyear Dental Vul- canite Co. v. Flagg, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,590, 9 Off. Gaz. 153; Tarr v. Folsom, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,756, 1 Ban. & A. 24, Holmes 312, 5 Off. Gaz. 92; Union Paper Collar Co. V. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,396, 2 Ban. & A. 60, 7 Off. Gaz. 698, 877, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 479, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 362; West v. Silver Wire, etc., Mfg. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,425, 5 Blatchf. 477, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 306; Won- son v. Gilman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,933, 2 Ban. & A. 590, 11 Off. Gaz. 1011. 20. Eastman v. Hinckel, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,256, 5 Ban. & A. 1 ; Thompson v. Jewett, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,961; United Nickel Co. v. Manhattan Brass Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,410, 4 Ban. & A. 173, 16 Blatchf. 68; Wonson v. Peterson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,934, 3 Ban. & A. 249, 13 Off. Gaz. 548. 21. Dougherty v. Doyle, 63 Fed. 475, 11 C. C. A. 298 [affirming 59 Fed. 470]. 22. Otley v. Watkins, 36 Fed. 323; Byam v. Eddy, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,263, 2 Blatchf. 521, 24 Vt. 666. 23. Otley v. Watkins, 36 Fed. 323. 24. Substitution of materials or equiva- lents as involving invention see supra, III, E, 14, 15. [XIII, A, 6, g, (I)] 980 [30 Cye.] PATENTS evaded by substituting equivalent elements for those set forth in the patented claim. 25 Patentees of an invention consisting merely of a combination of old ingredients are entitled to equivalents, by which is meant that the patent in respect to each of the respective ingredients comprising the invention covers every other ingredient which, in the same arrangement of the parts, will perform the same function, if it was well known as a proper substitute for the one described in the specification at the date of the patent. 26 (n) WHAT ARE EQUIVALENTS. Similarity or differences are to be deter- mined not by the names but by what the elements will do. 27 Where there is iden- 25. Union Water Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332, 25 L. ed. 1024; Ives v. Hamilton, 92 U. S. 426, 23 L. ed. 494; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Westing- house Electric, etc., Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co., 159 Fed. 154; Dey Time Register Co. v. Syracuse Time Recorder Co., 152 Fed. 440; Benbow-Brammer Mfg. Co. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 132 Fed. 614; Kin- loch Tel. Co. v. Western Electric Co., 113 Fed. 652, 51 C. C. A. 369; Lepper v. Randall, 113 Fed. 627, 51. C. C. A. 337; Fruit-Cleaning Co. f. Fresno Home-Packing Co., 94 Fed. 845 ; Bundy Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Time-Register Co., 94 Fed. 524, 36 C. C. A. 375; Thompson v. Second Ave. Traction Co., 93 Fed. 824, 35 C. C. A. 620; Hart, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Electric Co., 92 Fed. 657, 34 C. C. A. 606; Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. Whittaker Cement Co., 89 Fed. 323; Salomon v. Garvin Mach. Co., 84 Fed. 195; Boston, etc., Electric St. R. Co. v. Bemis Car-Box Co., 80 Fed. 287, 25 C. C. A. 420; Tripp Giant Leveler Co. v. Bresnahan, 70 Fed. 982 [affirmed in 72 Fed. 920] ; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 69 Fed. 371, 16 C. C. A. 259; Oval Wood Dish Co. v. Sandy Creek, New York, Wood Mfg. Co., 60 Fed. 285; Standard Fold- ing Bed Co. v. Osgood, 58 Fed. 583, 7 C. C. A. 382; Cutcheon v. Herrick, 52 Fed. 147 [modi- fied in 60 Fed. 80] ; Hoe v. Cranston, 42 Fed. 837 ; Cohansey Glass Mfg. Co. v. Wharton, 28 Fed. 189; Putnam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. 131, 11 Biss. 240; Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. 306; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Henry Stewart Co., 8 Fed. 920; Barrett v. Hall, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,047, 1 Mason 447, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 207; Foster v. Moore, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,978, 1 Curt. 279; May v. Johnson County, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,334; Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas, No. 12,948a; Consolidated Car Heating Co. v. Came, [1903] A. C. 509, 72 L. J. P. C. 110, 89 L. T. Rep. N. S. 224; Palmer v. Wagstaff, 2 C. L. R. 1052, 9 Exch. 494, 23 L. J. Exch. 217; Ellington v. Clark, 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 818; Woodward v. Clement, 10 Ont. 348; Patrice v. Sylvester, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 573. Combining parts of two patented struc- tures which results in changing one type of machine into the other is an infringement. National Cash Register Co. v. Grobet, 153 Fed. 905, 82 C. C. A. 651. 26. Imhaeuser v. Buerk, 101 U. S. 647, 25 L. ed. 945. 27. Columbia Wire Co. v. Kokomo Steel, etc., Co., 139 Fed. 578 ; Stetson v. Herreshoff [XIII. A, 6. g, (I)] Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 952; Western Electric Co. V. Home Tel. Co., 85 Fed. 649; In re Bough- ton, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,696, McArthur Pat. Cas. 278; Smith v. Downing, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,036, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64. Substantial and not technical identity is the test. Sayre v. Scott, 55 Fed. 971, 5 C. C. A. 366; Brush Electric Co. v. Western Elec- tric Light, etc., Co., 43 Fed. 533; Delong v. Bickford, 13 Fed. 32; Whipple v. Middlesex Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,520, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 41. Equivalents illustrated. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. v. Lambert Hoisting Engine Co., 150 Fed. 364; Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. American Road Mach. Co., 145 Fed. 923, 76 C. C. A. 461 [affirming 142 Fed. 221]; Bredin v. Solm- son, 132 Fed. 161 [affirmed in 136 Fed. 187, 69 C. C. A. 203] ; Lepper v. Randall, 113 Fed. 627, 51 C. C. A. 337; Crown Cork, etc., Co. t>. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72 [reversing 100 Fed. 849] ; Dowa- giac Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 108 Fed. 67 ; Kampfe v. Reichard, 105 Fed. 624; Owatonna Mfg. Co. V. Fargo, 94 Fed. 519; Beach v. Hobbs, 92 Fed. 146, 34 C. C. A. 248 [modifying 82 Fed. 916] ; Heap v. Greene, 91 Fed. 792, 34 C. C. A. 86 [reversing 75 Fed. 405] ; Huntington Dry- Pulverizer Co. v. Whittaker Cement Co., 89 Fed. 323; Heap v. Tremont, etc., Mills, 82 Fed. 449, 27 C. C. A. 316; C. T. Ham Mfg. Co. v. R. E. Dietz Co., 69 Fed. 841, 13 C. C. A. 687 [affirming 58 Fed. 367, 13 C. C. A. 687] ; H. Tibbe, etc., Mfg. Co. r. Missouri Cob-Pipe Co., 62 Fed. 158; Ballard v. McCluskey, 58 Fed. 880; Winchester Re- peating Arms Co. v. American Buckle, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 703; Riker v. Crocker- Wheeler Motor Co., 54 Fed. 519; Consolidated Pied- mont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable R. Co., 53 Fed. 385, 3 C. C. A. 570 ; Pacific Cable R. Co. v. Butte City St. R. Co., 52 Fed. 863 [af- firmed in 60 Fed. 90, 8 C. C. A. 484] ; Munici- pal Signal Co. v. Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 52 Fed. 459; Norton v. Jensen, 49 Fed. 859, 1 C. C. A. 452; Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Elgin Co-operative Butter Tub Co., 43 Fed. 892 ; Harmon v. Struthers, 43 Fed. 437 ; Rapid Service Store R. Co. v. Taylor, 43 Fed. 249; Reed v. Smith, 40 Fed. 882; Simonds Counter Mach. Co. v. Knox, 39 Fed. 702; Root v. Third Ave. R. Co., 39 Fed. 281 ; Cole- man Hardware Co. v. Kellogg, 39 Fed. 39; Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Wagner Palace- Car Co., 38 Fed. 416; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Buttrick, 37 Fed. 794; Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Charles Parker Co., 35 Fed. 748 ; Casey v. Butterfield, 35 Fed. 77; Moras v. Ufford, PATENTS [SOCye.] 981 tity of operation there is equivalency. 28 Mere differences of form are immaterial 34 Fed. 37; Thaxter v. Boston Electric Co., 32 Fed. 833; Royer v. Coupe, 29 Fed. 358; Pennsylvania Diamond-Drill Co. v. Simpson, 29 Fed. 288; Hoyt v. Slocum, 26 Fed. 329; Norton Door- Check, etc., Co. v. Elliott Pneu- matic Door-Check Co., 26 Fed. 320; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Excelsior Oil-Stove Mfg. Co., 26 Fed. 270; Parker v. Montpelier Carriage Co., 23 Fed. 886 ; Hartford Woven-Wire Mat- tress Co. v. Peerless Wire Mattress Co., 23 Fed. 587, 23 Blatchf. 227; Parker v. Stow, 23 Fed. 252; Maxheimer v. Meyer, 9 Fed. 460, 20 Blatchf. 17; Brainard v. Pulsifer, 7 Fed. 349; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Gas. 197; American Whip Co. v. Lombard, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 319, 3 Ban. & A. 598, 4 Cliff. 495, 14 Off. Gaz. 900 ; Blake v. Robertson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,500, 11 Blatchf. 237, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 509; Bu- chanan v. Howland, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,074, 5 Blatchf. 151, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 341; Cook v. Howard, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,160, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 269 ; Crehore v. Norton, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,381; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,028, 6 Blatchf. 429, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 580; Gibson v. Harris, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,396, 1 Blatchf. 167, Fish. Pat. Rep. 115; Gibson t?. Van Dresar, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,402, 1 Blatchf. 532, Fish. Pat. Rep. 369; Harwood v. Mill River Woolen Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,187, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 526; Johnsen v. Fassman, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 471, 1 Woods 138, 2 Off. Gaz. 94; Knox v. Loweree, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,910, 1 Ban. & A. 589, 6 Off. Gaz. 802; Maynadier v. Tenney, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,350, 2 Ban. 6 A. 615; Megraw v. Carroll, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,3936, 5 Ban. & A. 324 ; Myers v. Frame, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,991, 8 Blatchf. 446, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 493 [reversed on other grounds in 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34] ; Par- ker v. Remhoff, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,747, 3 Ban. & A. 550, 17 Blatchf. 206, 14 Off. Gaz. 601; Tilghinan v. Morse, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,044, 9 Blatchf. 421, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 323, 1 Off. Gaz. 574; Waterbury Brass Co. v. Miller, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,254, 9 Blatchf. 77, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 48; Waterbury Brass Co. 17. New York, etc., Brass Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,256, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 43; Weston v. Nash, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,454, 2 Ban. & A. 40, Holmes 488, 7 Off. Gaz. 1096; Woolcocks 17. Many, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,024, 9 Blatchf. 139, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 72; Berdan Fire-Arms Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 25 Ct. Cl. 355. Not equivalents. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., 198 U. S. 399, 25 S. Ct. 697, 49 L. ed. 1100 {.affirming 123 Fed. 869, 59 C. C. A. 357]; Black Diamond Coal-Min. Co. 17. Excelsior Coal Co., 156 U. S. Oil, 15 S. Ct. 482, 39 L. ed. 553; Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 153 U. S. 332, 14 S. Ct. 883, 38 L. ed. 734; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. 17. Kraetzer, 150 U. S. Ill, 14 S. Ct. 48, 37 L. ed. 1019; Weatherhead v. Coupe, 147 U. S. 322, 13 S. Ct. 312, 37 L. ed. 188; Joyce . Chillicothe Foundry, etc., Co., 127 U. S. 557, 8 S. Ct. 1311, 32 L. ed. 171; Forncrook 17. Root, 127 U. S. 176, 8 S. Ct. 1247, 32 L. ed. 97 ; Matthews 17. Iron-Clad Mfg. Co., 124 U. S. 347, 8 S. Ct. 639, 31 L. ed. 477; Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall R. Signal Co., 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct. 1069, 29 L. ed. 96; Blake 17. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679, 5 S. Ct. 692, 28 L. ed. 1070; L. E. Waterman Co. v. Mc- Cutchean, 127 Fed. 1020, 61 C. C. A. 653; Evans v. Newark Rivet Works, 121 Fed. 133 [affirmed in 126 Fed. 492, 61 C. C. A. 474] ; L. E. Waterman Co. v. Forsyth, 121 Fed. 107 [affirmed in 128 Fed. 926, 63 C. C. A. 648] ; Wellman t?. Midland Steel Co., 106 Fed. 221; Lepper 17. Randall, 105 Fed. 975; McCully 17. Kny-Scheerer Co., 103 Fed. 648; Dodge v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works, 101 Fed. 581; Rauh v. Guinzburg, 95 Fed. 151; John- son Electric Service Co. v. Powers Regulator Co., 85 Fed. 863, 29 C. C. A. 459; Norton v. Jensen, 81 Fed. 494; Engle Sanitary, etc., Co. v. Elwood, 73 Fed. 484; Wells v. Curtis, 66 Fed. 318, 13 C. C. A. 494; Whitcomb Envelope Co. 17. Logan, etc., Envelope Co., 63 Fed. 982; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Ball Glove Fastening Co., 58 Fed. 818, 7 C. C. A. 498; Detwiler v. Bosler, 58 Fed. 249, 55 Fed. 660; Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co., 55 Fed. 79, 5 C. C. A. 47; Holloway i?. Dow, 54 Fed. 511; Dudley E. Jones Co. 17. Munger Im- proved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 61, 1 C. C. A. 158; Hitchcock v. Wanzer Lamp Co., 45 Fed. 362; Sackett 17. Smith, 42 Fed. 846; Brush Electric Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 41 Fed. 679; Ligowsky Clay-Pigeon Co. V. Peoria Target Co., 35 Fed. 758; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v- Standard Paper-Bag Co., 29 Fed. 787; McFarland v. Deere, etc., Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. 781; Deis v. Doll, 21 Fed. 523; Lloyd v. Miller, 19 Fed. 915 ; Field v. Ireland, 19 Fed. 835; Schmidt 17. Freese, 12 Fed. 563; Field i?. De Comean, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,765, 5 Ban. A. 40, 17 Off. Gaz. 568 [affirmed in 116 U. S. 187, 6 S. Ct. 363, 29 L. ed. 596]; Forsyth v. Clapp, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,949, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528, Holmes 278, 4 Off. Gaz. 527; Sickles v. Youngs, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,838, 3 Blatchf. 293; Sickles v. Evans, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,839, 2 Cliff. 203, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Smith v. Marshall, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,077, 2 Ban. & A. 371, 10 Off. Gaz. 375; Wheeler v. Simpson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,500, 1 Ban. & A. 420, 6 Off. Gaz. 435. 28. Westinghouse Mach. Co. v. Press Pub. Co., 127 Fed. 822 [reversed on other grounds in 135 Fed. 767, 68 C. C. A. 469] ; Anderson 17. Collins, 122 Fed. 451, 58 C. C. A. 669; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. 17. Nearseal Unhairing Co., 115 Fed. 507, 53 C. C. A. 161 [affirming 113 Fed. 588]; Powell v. Leicester Mills Co., 108 Fed. 386, 47 C. C. A. 416; Rosenblatt 17. Fraser Tablet Triturate Mfg. Co., 106 Fed. 733; Diamond State Iron Co. 17. Goldie, 84 Fed. 972, 28 C. C. A. 589; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 572. On the other hand literal application of claims does not make infringement where the principle of operation is different. Boyden Power-Brake Co. 17. Westinghouse, 170 U. S. 537, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. ed. 1136 [reversing 70 Fed. 816, 17 C. C. A. 430] ; Standard Com- [XIII, A, 6, ft (II)] 982 [30 Cye.] PATENTS if the function and result are the same ; a and a part is no less equivalent because it performs additional functions. 80 Parts are also equivalents whether made integral or separate. 31 Parts are not equivalents if they do not operate to per- form the same function. 32 They must perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to produce the same result, 33 or where reorganization is necessary to effect the substitution. 84 Substitution of a material not known as an equivalent is not infringement.* (in) NECESSITY FOR KNOWLEDGE OF EQUIVALENT AT DATE OF PATENT. To constitute infringement by the substitution of equivalents, it is essential that the equivalent was known at the date of the patent as a proper substitute. 36 . puting Scale Co. i?. Computing Scale Co., 126 Fed. 630, 61 C. C. A. 541. 29. Hillard v. Fisher Book Typewriter, 159 Fed. 439; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 118 Fed. 136, 55 C. C. A. 86; Adams Co. v. Schreiber, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill Fed. 182; Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. Whittaker Cement Co., 89 Fed. 323; Adams v. Keystone Mfg. Co., 41 Fed. 595; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 31 Fed. 904; U. S. Metallic Packing Co. v. Tripp, 31 Fed. 350; Adams v. BridgeAvater Iron Co., 26 Fed. 324; Shannon v. J. M. W. Jones Stationery, etc., Co., 9 Fed. 205, 10 Biss. 498; Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56, 3 Ban. & A. 1, 12 Off. Gaz. 93 ; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. Nos. 13,057, 13,059, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 537. 30. Universal Brush Co. v. Sonn, 146 Fed. 517 [reversed on other grounds in 154 Fed. 665, 83 C. C. A. 422]; Comptograph Co. v. Mechanical Accountant Co., 145 Fed. 331, 75 C. C. A. 205; Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Goodyear, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 623, 3 Ban. & A. 161, 13 Off. Gaz. 45; Foss v. Herbert, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,957, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31; Sarven v. Hall, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,369, 9 Blatchf. 524, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415, 1 Off. Gaz. 437; Wheeler v. Clipper Mower, etc., Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,493, 10 Blatchf. 181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 2 Off. Gaz. 442. 31. Standard Caster, etc., Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162, 51 C. C. A. 109; Bundy Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Time-Register Co., 94 Fed. 524, 36 C. C. A. 375; Brown v. Reed Mfg. Co., 81 Fed. 48 ; Fryer v. New York Mut. L. Ins. Co., 30 Fed. 787 ; Baldwin v. Bernard, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 797, 9 Blatchf. 509 note, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 442, 2 Off. Gaz. 320; Baldwin v. Schultz, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 804, 9 Blatchf. 494, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 75, 2 Off. Gaz. 315, 319. 32. Hubbell v. U. S., 179 U. S. 86, 21 S. Ct. 28, 45 L. ed. 100; Dey Time Register Co. v. Syracuse Time Recorder Co., 152 Fed. 440; Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co., 86 Fed. 315; Scarborough v. Neff , 75 Fed. 579 ; Engle Sanitary, etc., Co. v. Elwood, 73 Fed. 484; Binder v. Atlanta Cotton Seed Oil Mills, 73 Fed. 480; Richard- son V. American Pin Co., 73 Fed. 476; Jack- son v. Birmingham Brass Co., 72 Fed. 269 [affirmed in 79 Fed. 801, 25 C. C. A. 196] ; New York Paper-Bag Mac'h,, etc., Co. v. Hol- lingsworth, etc., Co., 56 Fed. 224, 5 C. C. A. 490 [affirming 48 Fed. 562]; Williams v. Steam-Gauge, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 322; Bortree [XIII, A, 6, g, (ll)] v. Jackson, 43 Fed. 136; Peninsular Novelty Co. v. American Shoe-Tip Co., 39 Fed. 791; Huntington v. Hartford Heel-Plate Co., 36 Fed. 689 ; Matthews v. Chambers, 6 Fed. 874 ; Blake v. Rawson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,499, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 74, Holmes 200, 3 Off. Gaz. 122; Bridge v. Brown, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,858, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 236, Holmes 205, 3 Off. Gaz. 121; Brown v. Rubber Step Mfg. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,028, 3 Ban. & A. 232, 13 Off. Gaz. 369. 33. Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906 [affirming 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217]; 0. H. Jewell Filter Co. v. Jackson, 140 Fed. 340, 72 C. C. A. 304; International Mfg. Co. v. H. F. Brammer Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 396, 71 C. C. A. 633; Kinloch Tel. Co. v. Western Electric Co., 113 Fed. 652, 51 C. C. A. 362; Wilt v. Grier, 5 Fed. 450; Burden v. Corning, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,143, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 477 ; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,410, 2 Cliff. 637; May v. Johnson County, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,334. Similarity of result is not sufficient. Rich v. Baldwin, 133 Fed. 920, 66 C. C. A. 464; Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelly, 120 Fed. 289; Union Steam-Pump Co. v. Battle Creek Steam-Pump Co., 104 Fed. 337, 43 C. C. A. 560; Powell v. Leicester Mills Co., 103 Fed. 476 [reversed on other grounds in 108 Fed. 386, 47 C. C. A. 416] ; Wilson v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 92 Fed. 167, 34 C. C. A. 280; Schmidt v. Freese, 12 Fed. 563. 34. American Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Phila- delphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 123 Fed. 891; Pittsburg Meter Co. v. Pittsburg Supply Co., 109 Fed. 644, 48 C. C. A. 580; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,285, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536. 35. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Levin- stein, 24 Ch. D. 156, 52 L. J. Ch. 704, 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 822, 31 Wkly. Rep. 913 [affirmed in 12 App. Cas. 710, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853]. 36. Imhaeuser v. Buerk, 101 U. S. 647, 25 L, ed. 945; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Magic Light Co. V. Economy Gas-Lamp Co., 97 Fed. 87, 38 C. C. A. 56 ; Jones Co. v. Munger Improved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 61, 1 C. C. A. 158; Rowell ?-. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217 [affirmed in 11 3 "U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906] ; King V. Louisville Cement Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,798, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 336, 4 Off. Gaz. 181 ; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 24 Fed. Cas. No. PATENTS, [30 Cye.] 983 h. Omission of Parts. 37 A claim is not infringed when an element included therein is omitted and no equivalent is used j 38 and the rule applies, although the element is not really essential. 39 However, the omission of features not claimed does not avoid infringement. 40 14,399, 3 Cliff. 639, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 600; Webster v. New Brunswick Carpet Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,337, 1 Ban. & A. 84, 5 Off. Gaz. 522; Welling v. Rubber-Coated Harness Trimming Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,382, 1 Ban. & A. 282, 7 Off. Gaz. 606. 37. Omission of parts as involving invention see supra, III, E, 17. 38. Black Diamond Coal-Min. Co. v. Ex- celsior Coal Co., 156 U. S. 611, 15 S. Ct. 482, 39 L. ed. 553; Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 133 U. S. 360, 10 S. Ct. 409, 33 L. ed. 663; Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U. S. 530, 9 S. Ct. 389, 32 L. ed. 738 ; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 336, 10 L. ed. 985; Mallon v. Gregg, 137 Fed. 68, 69 C. C. A. 48; West- inghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Cutter Electric, etc., Co., 136 Fed. 217 [reversed on other grounds in 143 Fed. 966, 75 C. C. A. 540] ; Levy v. Harris, 124 Fed. 69 [affirmed in 130 Fed. 711, 65 C. C. A. 113]; Mayo Knitting Mach., etc., Co. v. Jenckes Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 110 [affirmed in 133 Fed. 527, 66 C. C. A. 557] ; American School-Furniture Co. v. J. M. Sauder Co., 113 Fed. 576; Moore v. Eggers, 107 Fed. 491, 46 C. C. A. 425; Parsons v. Minneapolis Threshing-Mcich. Co., 106 Fed. 941; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. V. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Thomson Meter Co. v. National Meter Co., 106 Fed. 519; Keyes v. United Indurated Fibre Co., 104 Fed. 1006, 44 C. C. A. 265; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Spaulding, 101 Fed. 990; Crown Cork, etc., Co. 17. Aluminum Stopper Co., 100 Fed. 849; Mesick v. Moore, 100 Fed. 845; Ryan v. Run- yon, 93 Fed. 970, 36 C. C. A. 36; Regina Music-Box Co. v. Paillard, 85 Fed. 644 ; Keyes v. United Indurated Fibre Co., 82 Fed. 32; Kansas City Hay-Press Co. v. Devol, 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578; Roemer v. Peddie, 81 Fed. 380, 26 C. C. A. 440; Excelsior Coal Co. I?. Oregon Imp. Co., 79 Fed. 355, 24 C. C. A. 640.; Carter Mach. Co. v. Hanes, 78 Fed. 346, 24 C. C. A. 128; Adams Electric R. Co. v. Lindell R. Co., 77 Fed. 432, 23 C. C. A. 223 ; Murphy Mfg. Co. v. Excelsior Car-Roof Co., 76 Fed. 965, 22 C. C. A. 658; Wheaton v. Norton, 70 Fed. 833, 17 C. C. A. 447; Adee 17. J. L. Mott Iron-Works, 55 Fed. 876, 5 C. C. A. 288; Baumer v. Will, 53 Fed. 373; Adee v. J. L. Mott Iron-Works, 46 Fed. 77; Mack v. Levy, 43 Fed. 69; Sun Vapor St. Light Co. v. Western St. Ligh't Co., 41 Fed. 43; Catchpole v. Pulsifer, 35 Fed. 766; Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co. v. Peoria Target Co., 35 Fed. 755; Kidd v. Ransom, 35 Fed. 588; Wight Fireproofing Co. 17. Chicago Fire- proof Co., 35 Fed. 582 ; Wheeler v. Hart, 32 Fed. 78 [affirmed in 140 U. S. 704, 11 S. Ct. 1031, 35 L. ed. 602] ; Tobey Furniture Co. V. Colby, 26 Fed. 100; Sheeder 17. Shannon, 25 Fed. 824 [affirmed in 131 U. S. 447, 9 S. Ct. 803, 33 L. ed. 224]; Taft v. Steere, 19 Fed. 600; Snow v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 602 [affirmed in 121 U. S. 617, 7 S. Ct. 1343, 30 L. ed. 1004] ; National Pump Cylinder Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co., 18 Fed. 324, 5 McCrary 592; Doane, etc., Mfg. Co. 17. Smith, 15 Fed. 459; Fay v. Preble, 14 Fed. 652, 11 Biss. 422; Morgan Elevated R. Co. 17. Pullman, 14 Fed. 648 ; Goss i;. Cameron, 14 Fed. 576, 11 Biss. 389; Hayes v. Seton, 12 Fed. 120, 20 Blatchf. 484; Onderdonk v. Fan- ning, 9 Fed. 106, 19 Blatchf. 363; Rowell 17. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 290, 10 Biss. 217 [affirmed in 113 U. S. 97, 5 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 906] ; Baldwin v. Schultz, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 804, 9 Blatchf. 494, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 75, 2 Off. Gaz. 315, 319; Bliss v. Haight, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,548, 7 Blatchf. 7, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 621; Brown v. Hinkley, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,012, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 370, 3 Off. Gaz. 384; Burr 17. Cowperthwait, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,188, 4 Blatchf. 163 ; Case v. Brown, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,488, 1 Biss. 382, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268; Craig v. Smith, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,339, 1 Ban. & A. 556. 4 Dill. 349 [affirmed in 100 U. S. 226, 25 L. ed. 577]; Dodge v. Card, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,951, 1 Bond 393, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 116; Evarts v. Ford, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,574, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 587, 5 Off. Gaz. 58; Florence Mfg. Co. v. Boston Diatite Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,882, 1 Ban. & A. 396, Holmes 415, 6 Off. Gaz. 728; Hailes v. Van Wormer, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,904, 7 Blatchf. 443 [affirmed in 20 Wall. 353, 22 L. ed. 241]; Hale 17. Stimpson, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,915, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 565; Haselden v. Ogden, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,190, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 378; Hayden v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,261, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 86 [affirmed in 3 Wall. 315, 18 L. ed. 76] ; Hill v. Houghton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,493, 1 Ban. & A. 291, 6 Off. Gaz. 3; Roberts v. Harnden, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,903, 2 Cliff. 500; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277; Sanford v. 'Herri- mack Hat Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,313, 2 Ban. & A. 408, 4 Cliff. 404, 10 Off. Gaz. 466 ; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,060, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 97; Sweetser 17. Helms, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,689, 2 Ban. & A. 263, 10 Off. Gaz. 4 ; Seed 17. Higgins, 8 H. L. Cas. 550, 6 Jur. N. S. 1264, 30 L. J. Q. B. 314, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 101, 11 Eng. Reprint 544. 39. Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 S. Ct. 1, 39 L. ed. 64; Henry Huber Co. 17. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 113 Fed. 599; Elfelt v. Steinhart, 11 Fed. 896, 6 Sawy. 480; Dodge v. Fearey, 8 Fed. 329. In Canada the omission of essential parts avoids infringement. Consolidated Car Heat- ing Co. v. Came, [1903] A. C. 509, 72 L. J. P. C. 110, 89 L. T. Rep. N. S. 224. Omission will not avoid infringement where the essence is taken. Consolidated Car Heating Co. V. Came, 18 Quebec Super. Ct. 44. 40. Letson v. Alaska Packers' Assoc., 130 Fed. 129, 64 C. C. A. 463 [modifying 119 Fed. 599]; Hobbs Mfg. Co. 17. Gooding, 111 [XIII, A, 6, h] 984: [30 Cyc.] PATENTS i. Addition of Parts. 41 The addition of one or more parts or features to the construction claimed securing additional functions will not avoid infringement. 42 There is no infringement, however, where the combination claimed is changed or destroyed by the addition making a new combination. 43 j. Transposition of Elements! 44 A mere change in the location of an element will not avoid infringement where the operation is substantially the same, 45 but a Fed. 403, 49 C. C. A. 414; Brammer v. Schroeder, 106 Fed. 918, 46 C. C. A. 41; National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Inter- changeable Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed. 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co., 102 Fed. 899, 43 C. C. A. 48; Boston v. Allen, 91 Fed. 248, 33 C. C. A. 485; Mast v. Dempster Mills Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. 327, 27 C. C. A. 191; National Cash-Register Co. v. American Cash-Register Co., 53 Fed. 367, 3 C. C. A. 559; American Automaton Weighing Mach. Co. v. Blauvelt, 50 Fed. 213; National Cash-Register Co. v. Boston Cash Indicator, etc., Co., 45 Fed. 481; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 219, 9 Biss. 503; Francis v. Mellor, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,039, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 153, 1 Off. Gaz. 48, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 157; Jurgensen v. Magnin, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,586, 9 Blatchf. 294, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 237; Mac- donald v. Shepard, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,767, 4 Ban. & A. 343. 41. Duplication of parts as involving in- vention see supra, III, E, 11. 42. Rees v. Gould, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 187, 21 L. ed. 39; Walker Patent Pivoted Bin Co. v. Miller, 132 Fed. 823 [affirmed in 139 Fed. 134, 71 C. C. A. 398]; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Brennan, 118 Fed. 143 [reversed on other grounds in 127 Fed. 143, 62 C. C. A. 257] ; Brislin v. Carnegie Steel Co., 118 Fed. 579 [reversed on other grounds in 124 Fed. 213, 59 C. C. A. 651]; Powell v. Leicester Mills Co., 108 Fed. 386, 47 C. C. A. 416 [reversing 103 Fed. 476] ; Newton v. McGuire, 97 Fed. 614; Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Hays, 95 Fed. 168; Jones v. Holman, 58 Fed. 973 [reversed on other grounds in 61 Fed. 105, 680, 9 C. C. A. 385] ; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Elliott Button-Fast- ener Co., 58 Fed. 220; Williames v. Barnard, 41 Fed. 358; Baldwin v. T. G. Conway Co., 35 Fed. 519; Filley v. Littlefield Stove Co., 30 Fed. 434; Wirt v. Brown, 30 Fed. 188; Blake v. Robertson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,501, 6 Off. Gaz. 297 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245] ; Cleveland v. Towle, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,888, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 525; Earle v. Harlow, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,246, 2 Ban. & A. 264, 9 Off. Gaz. 1018; Imlay v. Nor- wich, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,012, 4 Blatchf. 227, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,411, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,949, 2 Ban. & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 151, 8 Off. Gaz. 773; Pitts v. Wemple, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,195, 6 McLean 558; Robertson v. Hill, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,925. 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465, 4 Off. Gaz. 132; Waterbury Brass Co. v. New York, etc., Brass Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,256, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 43; Williams v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 29 [XIII, A, 6, i] Fed. Cas. No. 17,716, 4 Ban. & A. 441, 17 Blatchf. 21, 16 Off. Gaz. 906. Making one of the parts perform additional functions does not avoid infringement. Colby v. Card, 63 Fed. 462 [reversed on other grounds in 64 Fed. 594, 12 C. C. A. 319] ; Pacific Cable R. Co. v. Butte City St. R. Co., 55 Fed. 760 [reversed in 60 Fed. 410, 9 C. C. A. 41]; Masseth v. Palm, 51 Fed. 824; Brush Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 44 Fed. 284; Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. Co. v. Domestic Tel., etc., Co., 42 Fed. 220; Shaver v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. 68; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, 6 Fed. 377, 19 Blatchf. 123; New York Rubber Co. v. Chaskel, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,215, 9 Off. Gaz. 923; Sloat v. Spring, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948a. Duplicating one or more parts will not avoid infringement. Diamond State Iron Co. v. Goldie, 84 Fed. 972, 28 C. C. A. 589 [af- firming 81 Fed. 173] ; Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co., 59 Fed. 581 [modified in 63 Fed. 962, 11 C. C. A. 528]; Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co. v. Jacobs Electric Co., 36 Fed. 191; Blake v. Eagle Works Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,494, 3 Biss. 77, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 591; Kittle v. Frost, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,856, 9 Blatchf. 214, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213; Pike v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,163, 1 Ban. 6 A. 560, Holmes 445, 6 Off. Gaz. 575. Interposing parts in combination will not avoid infringement where the operation of the combination is the same. Union R. Co. v. Sprague Electric R., etc., Co., 88 Fed. 82, 31 C. C. A. 391; Steel-Clad Bath Co. v. Davison, 77 Fed. 736; Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. 872, 20 Blatchf. 106. 43. Voss v. Fisher, 113 U. S. 213, 5 S. Ct. 511, 28 L. ed. 975; Barr Co. v. New York, etc., Automatic Sprinkler Co., 35 Fed. 513; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,625, 1 Ban. & A. 229, 12 Blatchf. 68, 5 Off. Gaz. 697 [a/firmed in 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. ed. 719] ; Robertson v. Hill, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,925, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465, 4 Off. Gaz. 132. 44. Change of location of parts as involv- ing invention see supra, III, E, 16. 45. Wagner Typewriter Co. v. Wyckoff, 151 Fed. 585, 81 C. C. A. 129 [modifying 138 Fed. 108] ; Pettibone V. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 133 Fed. 730 [reversed on other grounds in 141 Fed. 95] ; Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Hays, 100 Fed. 984, 41 C. C. A. 142; Schroeder v. Brammer, 98 Fed. 880; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. W. G. & A. R. Morrison Co., 54 Fed. 693; Henzel v. California Electrical Works, 51 Fed. 754, 2 C. C. A. 495; Norton v. Jensen, 49 Fed. 859, 1 C. C. A. 452; Cali- fornia Electrical Works v. Henzel, 48 Fed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 985 rearrangement producing different operations but the same result is not an infringement. 46 k. Repair. The purchaser of a patented machine has the right to use it until worn out, 47 and therefore he may repair it and substitute new parts for old so long as the identity of the machine is not destroyed. 48 He may not, however, 375; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Eureka Spindle Co., 33 Fed. 836 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 637, 12 8. Ct. 980, 36 L. ed. 849] ; Kirk v. Du Bois, 33 Fed. 252; Belle Patent Button Fastener Co. v. Lucas, 28 Fed. 371; Hartford Mach. Screw Co. v. Reynolds, 26 Fed. 528; Hoyt v. Slocum, 26 Fed. 329; Putnam v. Hollender, 6 Fed. 882, 19 Blatchf. 48; Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56, 3 Ban. & A. 1, 12 Off. Gaz. 93; Conover v. Dohrman, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,120, 6 Blatchf. 60, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382; Decker v. Grote, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,726, 10 Blatchf. 331, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143, 3 Off. Gaz. 65; Gale Mfg. Co. v. Prutz- man, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,191a, 5 Ban. & A. 154, 17 Off. Gaz. 743; Hamilton v. Ives, 11 Fed. Cas. No, 5,982, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 244, 3 Off. Gaz. 30 [affirmed in 92 U. S. 426, 23 L. ed. 494] ; King v. Maudelbaum, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,799, 8 Blatchf. 468, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 577; Knox v. Great Western Quicksilver Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,907, 4 Ban. & A. 25, 7 Reporter 325, 6 Sawy. 430, 14 Off. Gaz. 897; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058; Winans v. Danforth, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,859. Mere reversal of position or operation does not avoid infringement. Heap v. Greene, 91 Fed. 792, 34 C. C. A. 86 [reversing 75 Fed. 405]; Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. Whit- taker Cement Co., 89 Fed. 323; Socigte" Ano- nyme Usine J. Cleret v. Rehfuss, 75 Fed. 657 ; Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164, 59 Fed. 295, 8 C. C. A. 129; Brown Mfg. Co. v. Mast, 53 Fed. 578; Masseth V. Palm, 51 Fed. 824; Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 258, Fish. Pat. Rep. 184; Buerk v. Im- haeuser, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,106, 1 Ban. & A. 337, 5 Off. Gaz. 752 [affirmed in 101 U. S. 647, 25 L. ed. 945]; Potter v. Schenck, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,337, 1 Biss. 515, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 82; Potter v. Whitney, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,341, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 77, 1 Lowell 87; Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Cartridge Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,369, 2 Ban. & A. 593, 11 Off. Gaz. 1113; Wells v. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. Infringement of a process patent is not avoided by reversing one of the mechanical steps of the process, where the purpose and result of the step is the same. Burdon Wire, etc., Co. v. Williams, 128 Fed. 927. 46. McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How. (U. S.) 402, 15 L. ed. 930; Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Duplex Printing-Press Co., 101 Fed. 282, 41 C. C. A. 351; Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order Red Men's Hall Assoc., 94 Fed. 155, 36 C. C. A. 125; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering, etc., Co., 83 Fed. 473, 27 C. C. A. 562 ; Brown v. Stilwell, etc., Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 731, 741, 6 C. C. A. 528 [re- versing 49 Fed. 738] ; Reece Buttonhole Mach. Co. v. Globe Buttonhole Mach. Co., 54 Fed. 884 [reversed on other grounds in 61 Fed. 958, 10 C. C. A. 194] ; Bruff v. Waterbury Buckle Co., 29 Fed. 214; Otis Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co., 27 Fed. 550 [af- firmed in 136 U. S. 646, 10 S. Ct. 1072, 34 L. ed. 553] ; National Car- Brake Shoe Co. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 15 Fed. 462; Pattee v. Moline Plow Co., 9 Fed. 821, 10 Biss. 377; Gorham v. Mixter, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,626, Brunn. Col. Cas. 327 ; Habeman v. Whitman, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,885a, 5 Ban. & A. 530. Similarity of result is not sufficient. Mc- Cormick v. Talcott, 20 How. (U. S.) 402, 15 L. ed. 930; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. New York Air Brake Co., 119 Fed. 874, 56 C. C. A. 404; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; Kinloch Tel. Co. v. Western Electric Co., 113 Fed. 659, 51 C. C. A. 369; Adams Electric Co. v. Lindell R. Co., 77 Fed. 432, 23 C. C. A. 223; Robbins v. Aurora Match Co., 43 Fed. 434; Taylor v. Garretson, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,792, 9 Blatchf. 156, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 116. 47. Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 How. (U. S.) 217, 16 L. ed. 240; Wilson v. Simp- son, 9 How. (U. S.) 109, 13 L. ed. 66; Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. St. Louis Car- Coupler Co., 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433; Day v. Union India-Rubber Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,691, 3 Blatchf. 488 [affirmed in 20 How. 216, 15 L. ed. 883]; May v. Chaffee, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,332, 2 Dill. 385, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 160; Spaulding v. Page, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,219, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Sawy. 702. 48. Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 How. (U. S.) 217, 16 L. ed. 240; Wilson v. Simp- son, 9 How. (U. S.) 109, 13 L. ed. 66; O'Rourke Engineering Constr. Co. v. McMul- len, 150. Fed. 338; Morrin v. Robert White Engineering Works, 138 Fed. 68 [modified and affirmed in 143 Fed. 519, 74 C. C. A. 466] ; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 146, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 692; Alaska Packers' Assoc. v. Pacific Steam Whal- ing Co., 93 Fed. 672 ; Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. St. Louis Car-Coupler Co., 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433 ; Young v. Foerster, 37 Fed. 203 [affirmed in 159 U. S. 272, 15 S. Ct. 1044, 40 L. ed. 138] ; Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 113, 2 Cliff. 435; Farrington v. Detroit Water Com'rs, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,687, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 216; Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,331, 10 Blatchf. 1, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 477. Patented process cannot be used in repair- ing. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. V. Preterre, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,596, 3 Ban. & A. 471, 15 Blatchf. 274, 14 Off. Gaz. 346. [XIII, A, 6, k] 986 [30 Cye.] PATENTS reconstruct or rebuild a worn-out machine. 49 No general rule can be laid down by which to determine the line of demarkation between legitimate repairs which a purchaser of a patented machine may rightfully make thereon, and a reconstruc- tion or reproduction which will constitute infringement. Each case must in that regard be decided on its own facts, having reference to the scope arid purpose of the invention and the fair and reasonable intention of the parties. 50 1. Superiority or Inferiority as a Test of Infringement. Although superiority may indicate such difference as to avoid infringement, 51 the fact that the infringing article is superior to that made by the patentee will not avoid infringement so long as the essential features of the patented article are used, 52 nor will the fact Parts for sale to others cannot be manu- factured see St. Louis Car-Coupling Co. v. Shickle, etc., Iron Co., 70 Fed. 783 [reversed on other grounds in 77 Fed. 739], Parts of ditferent construction may be sub- stituted to improve the device. Thomson- Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Electric R. Specialty Co., 75 Fed. 1005, 22 C. C. A. 1 [modifying 72 Fed. 1016]. 49. Morrin v. Robert White Engineering Works, 138 Fed. 68 [modified and a/firmed in 143 Fed. 519, 74 C. C. A. 466] ; Pacific Steam Whaling Co. v. Alaska Packers' Assoc., 100 Fed. 462, 40 C. C. A. 494 [affirming 93 Fed. 672] ; Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. St. Louis Car- Coupler Co., 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433; Davis Electric Works v. Edison Electric Light Co., 60 Fed. 276, 8 C. C. A. 615 [affirming 58 Fed. 878] ; Bicknell v. Todd, 3 Fed. Gas. No. 1,389, 5 McLean 236, Fish. Pat. Rep. 452; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,633, 5 Ban. & A. 4, 17 Off. Gaz. 675; Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Cartridge Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,369, 2 Ban. & A. 593, 11 Off. Gaz. 1113; Wortendyke v. White, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,050, 2 Ban. & A. 25; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Neal, [1899] 1 Ch. 807, 68 L. J. Ch. 378, 80 L. T. Rep. N. S. 746, 47 Wkly. Rep. 632. Changing and reconstructing patented ma- chines and selling them under a different name is infringement. National Phonograph Co. v. Fletcher, 117 Fed. 149. 50. Goodvear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 146, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 692. 51. Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,411, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351; Singer v. Walmsley, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,900, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558; Smith v. Woodruff, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,128a, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 476. 52. Hoyt ?. Home, 145 U. S. 302, 12 S. Ct. 922, 36 L. ed. 713; Morley Sewing Mach. Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263, 9 S. Ct. 299, 32 L. ed. 715; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Robertson v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245; O'Reilly v. Morss, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 356, 5 L. ed. 472; Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co., 127 Fed. 341; Elec- tric Smelting, etc., Co. v. Pittsburg Reduc- tion Co., 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636; Brislin v. Carnegie Sleel Co., 118 Fed. 579 [reversed on other grounds in 124 [XIII, A, 6, k] Fed. 213, 59 C. C. A. 651]; Adams Co. v. Schreiber, etc., Mfg. Co., Ill Fed. 182 [reversed on other grounds in 117 Fed. 830, 54 C. C. A. 128]; Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72; Bonnette Arc Lawn Sprinkler Co. v. Koehler, 82 Fed. 428, 27 C. C. A. 200; Whitely v. Fadner, 73 Fed. 486; Goshen Sweeper Co. v. Bissell Car pet- Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 67, 19 C. C. A. 13; Robbins v. Dueber Watch-Case Mfg. Co., II Fed. 186; Traver v. Brown, 62 Fed. 933; Simmons v. Standard Oil Co., 62 Fed. 928; Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co., 60 Fed. 283, 8 C. C. A. 622; Merrow v. Shoemaker, 59 Fed. 120 [reversed on other grounds in 61 Fed. 945, 10 C. C. A. 181]; Gilbert v. Rein- hardt Numbering Mach. Co., 58 Fed. 975; Stonemetz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Fold- ing-Mach. Co., 57 Fed. 601 [affirmed in 58 Fed. 571, 7 C. C. A. 374]; Pittsburg Re- duction Co. v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 55 Fed. 301; White v. Waltridge, 46 Fed. 526; National Typographic Co. v. New York Typographic Co., 46 Fed. 114; Shaver v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. 68; Royer v. Coupe, 29 Fed. 358; Filley v. Littlefield, 25 Fed. 282; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Chrolithion Collar, etc., Co., 23 Fed. 397, 23 Blatchf. 205; Bostock v. Goodrich, 21 Fed. 316; Roe- mer v. Simon, 20 Fed. 197; Every v. Burt, 15 Fed. 112 [reversed on other grounds in 133 U. S. 349, 10 S. Ct. 394, 33 L. ed. 647] ; Foye 17. Nichols, 13 Fed. 125, 8 Sawy. 201; Frost v. Marcus, 13 Fed. 88; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. 509; Pennington v. King, 7 Fed. 462; Adams v. Joliet Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 56, 3 Ban. & A. 1, 12 Off. Gaz. 93; Alden v. Dewey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 153, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 17, 1 Story 336; American Whip Co. v. Lombard, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 319, 3 Ban. & A. 598, 4 Cliff. 495, 14 Off. Gaz. 900; Blake v. Eagle Works Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,494, 3 Biss. 77, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 591; Blake v. Robertson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,500, 11 Blatchf. 237, 6 Fisli. Pat. Cas. 509; Carstaedt v. U. S. Corset Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,468, 2 Ban. & A. 119, 13 Blatchf. 119, 9 Off. Gaz. 151; Chicago Fruit- House Co. t7. Busch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,669, 2 Biss. 472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3.030, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 108; Conover 17. Rapp, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,124, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 57; Converse v. Cannon, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,144, 2 Woods 7, 9 Off. Gaz. 105; Cook PATENTS [30 Cye.] 987 that it is inferior. 53 Infringement is not avoided by intentionally making the device imperfect or defective. 54 m. Patented Improvement. A device is none the less an infringement because it is covered by an improvement patent granted to the inf ringer. 55 Change in v. Howard, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,160, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 269 ; Crehore v. Norton, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,381; Decker -v. Griffith, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,724, 10 Blatchf. 343 note; De Florez v. Raynolds, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,742, 3 Ban. & A. 292, 14 Blatchf. 505; Flint v. Roberts, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,875, 4 Ban. & A. 165; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379; Foss v. Herbert, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,957, 1 Biss. 121, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31; Goodyear v. Mathews, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,576, 1 Paine 300, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 50; Goodyear v. Mullee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,579, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 420; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Imlay v. Norwich, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,012, 4 Blatchf. 227, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; Kendrick v. Emmons, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,695, 2 Ban. & A. 208, 9 Off. Gaz. 201; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117; Odiorne v. Denney, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,431, 3 Ban. & A. 287, 13 Off. Gaz. 965, 1 N. J. L. J. 183 ; Pitts v. Wemple, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,194, 1 Biss. 87, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 10; Reutgen v. Kanowrs, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,710, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Wash. 168; Sayles v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,415, 3 Biss. 52, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 584; Stainthorp v. Humiston, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,281, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Grossman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,321, 3 Ban. & A. 281, 4 Cliff. 568; Tur- rell v. Spaeth, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,269, 3 Ban. & A. 458, 14 Off. Gaz. 377; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Pultz, etc., Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,392, 3 Ban. & A. 403, 15 Blatchf. 160, 15 Off. Gaz. 423; Westing- house v. Gardner, etc., Air Brake Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,450, 2 Ban. & A. 55, 9 Off. Gaz. 538; Whipple v. Baldwin Mfg. Co., 29 Fed. as. No. 17,514, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29; Whit- ney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,592, 2 Bond 45, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 157; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40; Wilbur v. Beecher, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,634, 2 Blatchf. 132, Fish. Pat. Rep. 401 ; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,864, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Woodcock v. Parker, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,971, 1 Gall. 438, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 37; Woodworth v. Rogers, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,018, 3 W T oodb. & M. 135, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625; United Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 21 Ch. D. 720, 51 L. J. Ch. 705, 46 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620, 30 Wkly. Rep. 724; American Dunlop Tire Co. v. Anderson Tire Co., 5 Can. Exch. 194. Relative superiority of devices is irrelevant. Stevens v. Pierpont, 42 Conn. 360; Lourie Implement Co. v. Lenhart, 130 Fed. 122, 64 C. C. A. 456; May v. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691 [reversed on other grounds in 137 U. S. 395, 11 S. Ct. 98, 34 L. ed. 714]; Cox v. Griggs, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,302, 1 Biss. 362, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; Roberts v. Harnden, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,903, 2 Cliff. 500; Tilgh- man v. Werk, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,046, 1 Bond 511,- 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 229. 53. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Bowsky, 95 Fed. 474; Hubbard v. King Ax Co., 89 Fed. 713; Union R. Co. v. Sprague Electric R., etc., Co., 88 Fed. 82, 31 C. C. A. 391; Na- tional Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 86 Fed. 917, 30 C. C. A. 487; Heap v. Greene, 75 Fed. 405 [reversed on other grounds in 91 Fed. 792, 34 C. C. A. 86] ; Robinson v. Sutter, 8 Fed. 828, 10 Biss. 100; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,923, 2 Cliff. 379 ; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166. 54. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Standard Stopper Co., 136 Fed. 199; A. R. Milner Seating Co. v. Yesbera, 133 Fed. 916, 67 C. C. A. 210; White v. Peerless Rubber Mfg. Co., Ill Fed. 190; King Ax Co. v. Hubbard, 97 Fed. 795, 38 C. C. A. 423; Penfield v. Chambers, 92 Fed. 630, 34 C. C. A. 579; Whiteley v. Fadner, 73 Fed. 486; Tripp Giant Leveller Co. v. Bresnahan, 70 Fed. 982 [affirmed in 72 Fed. 920, 19 C. C. A. 2371; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. W. G. & A. R. Mor- rison Co./ 52 Fed. 590; Chicago Fruit-House Co. v. Busch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,669, 2 Biss. 472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395. 55. Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 S. Ct. 970, 29 L. ed. 1017; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. ed. 279; Blanchard v. Putnam, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 420, 19 L. ed. 433; Ries v. Barth Mfg. Co., 136 Fed. 850, 69 C. C. A. 528; Bradford Belting Co. v. .Kisinger-Ison Co., 113 Fed. 811, 51 C. C. A. 483; Smith v. Uhrich, 94 Fed. 865; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 63 Fed. 572; Put- nam v. Keystone Bottle Stopper Co., 38 Fed. 234; Tate v. Thomas, 27 Fed. 306; Wilson v. Cubley, 26 Fed. 156; Zeun v. Kaldenberg, 16 Fed. 539; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Alden, 10 Fed. 555; White v. Heath, 10 Fed. 291; Carter i\ Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 513; Cleveland v. Towle, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,888, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 525; Jones v. Merrill, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,481, 8 Off. Gaz. 401 ; Morse Fountain-Pen Co. V. Esterbrook Steel-Pen Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,862, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515; Storrs v. Howe, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,495, 2 Ban. & A. 420, 4 Cliff. 388, 10 Off. Gaz. 421; Wilson v. Barnum, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,787, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 635, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 749, 1 Wall Jr. 347. Use of patented machine to perform a proc- ess previously patented by another is in- fringement. Expanded Metal Co. v. Brad- ford, 136 Fed. 870 [reversed on other grounds [XIII, A, 6, m] 988 [30 Cye.] PATENTS the details of construction of a patented article may be patentable as improvements, but is no protection against the infringement of the original patent. 56 The original patentee cannot use the patented improvement. 57 7. DESIGNS. An article infringes a design patent when it so nearly resembles the patented design in appearance as to lead ordinary purchasers to mistake one for the other. The test is the sameness of appearance to the ordinary observer giving ordinary attention to the matter. 58 Difference in structure or appearance which will enable experts to distinguish them will not prevent infringement. 59 But confusion which is due to lack of attention by purchasers or other causes than similarity of the patented form will not show infringement. 60 And it is in 146 Fed. 984, 77 C. C. A. 230] ; Collette f. Lasnier, 13 Can. Sup. Ct. 563; Merrill v. Cousins, 26 U. C. Q. B. 49. Where the alleged infringer has a subse- quently granted patent upon his device, the presumption is against infringement. New Jersey Wire Cloth Co. v. Buffalo Expanded Metal Co., 131 Fed. 265 [affirmed in 135 Fed. 1021, 68 C. C. A. 672] ; Anderson v. Collins, 122 Fed. 451, 58 C. C. A. 669; Powell v. Leicester Mills Co., 103 Fed. 476 [reversed on other grounds in 108 Fed. 386, 47 C. C. A. 416] ; Norton v. Jensen, 90 Fed. 415, 33 C. C. A. 141; Griffith v. Shaw, 89 Fed. 313; St. Louis Car-Coupler Co. v. National Mal- leable Castings Co., 87 Fed. 885, 31 C. C. A. 265; Kohler v. George Worthington Co., 77 Fed. 844; Ransome v. Hyatt, 69 Fed. 148, 16 C. C. A. 185; National Harrow Co. v. Hanby, 54 Fed. 493; Brown v. Selby, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,030, 2 Biss. 457, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 363; Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,108, 2 Ban. & A. 465, 11 Off. Gaz. 112. Contra, Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging, etc., Co., 99 Fed. 745; Hardwick v. Masland, 71 Fed. 887; Hollidav v. Pickhardt, 12 Fed. 147. 56. Tate v. Thomas, 27 Fed. 306; Wilson V. Cubley, 26 Fed. 156; White v. Heath, 10 Fed. 291; Carter t?. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512. 57. Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 S. Ct. 970, 29 L. ed. 1017; Royer v. Coupe, 29 Fed. 358; Crehore v. Norton, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,381 ; Flint v. Roberts, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,475, 4 Ban. & A. 165; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Cross- man, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,321, 3 Ban. & A. 281, 4 Cliff. 568; Whipple v. Baldwin Mfg. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,514, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29. 58. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. ed. 606; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 20 L ed. 731; Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co., 136 Fed. 210 [affirmed in 145 Fed. 928, 76 C. C. A. 466] ; Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Starr Bros. Bell Co., 114 Fed. 362 ; Pelouze Scale, etc., Co. v. American Cutlery Co., 102 Fed. 916, 43 C. C. A. 52; Myers "v. Sternheim, 97 Fed. 625, 38 C. C. A. 345; Byram v. Friedberger, 87 Fed. 559; Whittall v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 79 Fed. 787; Henderson v. Tompkins, 60 Fed. 758; Mac- beth v. Gillinder, 54 Fed. 171; Ripley V. Elson Glass Co., 49 Fed. 927; Dreyfus v. [XIII, A, 6, m] Schneider, 25 Fed. 481; Dryfoos v. Fried- man, 18 Fed. 824, 21 Blatchf. 563; Jennings v. Kibbe, 10 Fed. 669, 20 Blatchf. 353; Wood v. Dolby, 7 Fed. 475, 19 Blatchf. 214; Mc- Crea v. Holdsworth, L. R. 6 Ch. 418, 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 444, 19 Wkly. Rep. 36. Use of different names or trade-marks. Where two designs are substantially similar the fact that different names or trade-marks are or may be used in connection with them will not sufficiently distinguish them. Perry v. Starrett, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,012, 3 Ban. & A. 485, 14 Off. Gaz. 599. What was old at the date of the patent will not infringe. Byram v, Friedberger, 87 Fed. 559. Cases holding design infringed see Mat- thews, etc., Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp, etc., Co., 103 Fed. 634; American Electrical Novelty, etc., Co. v. Acme Electric Lamp Co., 98 Fed. 895 ; Whittall v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 79 Fed. 787; Braddock Glass Co. v. Macbeth, 64 Fed. 118, 12 C. C. A. 70; Stewart v. Smith, 58 Fed. 580, 7 C. C. A. 380 [affirming 55 Fed. 481]; Macbeth v. Gillinder, 54 Fed. 171; Ripley v. Elson Glass Co., 49 Fed. 927 ; Perry v. Starrett, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,012, 3 Ban. & A. 485, 14 Off. Gaz. 599. Cases holding design not infringed see Buerkle v. Standard Heater Co., 105 Fed. 779; Pelouze Scale, etc., Co. v. American Cutlery Co., 102 Fed. 916, 43 C. C. A. 52; Byram v. Friedberger, 100 Fed. 963, 41 C. C. A. 121 [affirming 87 Fed. 559] ; Magic Light Co. v. Economy Gas-Lamp Co., 97 Fed. 87, 38 C. C. A. 56; Mesinger Bicycle Saddle Co. v. Humber, 94 Fed. 672, 674; Soehner v. Favorite Stove, etc., Co., 84 Fed. 182, 28 C. C. A. 317; Frank v. Hess, 84 Fed. 170; Michigan Stove Co. v. Fuller- Warren Co., 81 Fed. 376; Sutro Bros. Braid Co. v. Schloss, 44 Fed. 356; Dukes v. Bauerle, 41 Fed. 784; Crocker v. Cutter Tower Co., 29 Fed. 456 [af- firmed in 140 U. S. 678, 11 S. Ct. 1019, 35 L. ed. 600] j Jennings v. Kibbe, 24 Fed. 697. 59. Gorham Mfg. Co. t?. White, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 20 L. ed. 731 [reversing 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,627, 7 Blatchf. 513, 2 Whitm. Pat. Cas. 392]; Hutter v. Broome, 114 Fed. 655 ; Redway v. Ohio Stove Co., 38 Fed. 582; Tomkinson v. Willets Mfg. Co., 23 Fed. 895; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359; Perry v. Starrett, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,012, 3 Ban. & A. 4R5, 14 Off. Gaz. 599. 60. Kruttschnitt v. Simmons, 122 Fed. 1020, 58 C. C. A. Ill [affirming 118 Fed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 989 of course obvious that an invalid design patent will not support a claim of infringement. 61 8. INFRINGEMENT AFTER EXPIRATION OF PATENT. Articles illegally made during the life of a patent cannot be lawfully sold after the patent has expired. 68 The illegality attaches to the things themselves. The person making them has no right to make them, no right to them when made. 63 But the part manufacture of articles not constituting an infringement, with intent to complete into the patented article immediately on the expiration of the patent, is not infringement, as the monopoly only exists during the life of the patent. 64 B. Contributory Infringement 1. IN GENERAL. Contributory infringe- ment is the intentional aiding of one person by another in the unlawful making or selling or using of the patented invention, 65 and this is usually done by making or selling a part of the patented invention with the intent and purpose of so aid- ing. 66 The essence of contributory infringement lies in concerting with others in an unlawful invasion of the patentee's rights. 67 The burden of proof is on complainant to show an intention on the part of defendants to aid others in such infringement. 68 2. SELLING PARTS OF PATENTED INVENTION. Selling parts adapted and intended for use in making the patented invention in violation of the patent is contributory infringement. 69 The mere fact that they might be so used, however, will not 851 J; Monroe v. Anderson, 58 Fed. 398, 7 C. C. A. 272. 61. Union Welting Co. v. McCarter, 108 Fed. 398, 47 C. C. A. 428; Feder v. Stewart, etc., Co., 105 Fed. 628; Kampfe v. Reichard, 105 Fed. 622; Rowe v. Blodgett, etc., Co., 103 Fed. 873 {affirmed in 112 Fed. 161, 46 C. C. A. 214] ; Matthews, etc., Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp, etc., Co., 103 Fed. 634; Koenen v. Drake, 101 Fed. 466, 41 C. C. A. 466; Gary Mfg. Co. v. Neal, 98 Fed. 617, 39 C. C. A. 189; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Triumph Electric Co., 97 Fed. 99, 38 C. C. A. 65; Sagendorph v. Hughes, 95 Fed. 478. 62. Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Elliott- Fisher Co., 156 Fed. 588; American Diamond Rock-Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 2 Fed. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147 ; American Diamond Rock-Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. 870, 18 Blatchf. 50; Crossley v. Beverly, 9 B. & C. 63, 17 E. C. L. 38, 3 C. & P. 513, 14 E. C. L. 690, 7 L. J. K. B. O. S. 127, M. & M. 283, 22 E. C. L. 522, 1 Russ. & M. 166 note, 5 Eng. Ch. 166 note, 39 Eng. Reprint 65 [affirmed in 4 L. J. Ch. 25] ; Richards v. Williamson, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 746, 22 Wkly. Rep. 765. 63. American Diamond Rock-Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. 870, 18 Blatchf. 50. 64. White v. Walbridge, 46 Fed. 526. 65. Howson Contrib. Infr. Pat. 1; Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 146, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 692; Heaton- Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Electric R. Specialty Co., 75 Fed. 1005, 22 C. C. A. 1; Hatch v. Hall, 30 Fed. 613; American Cotton-Tie Supply Co. v. McCready, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 295, 4 Ban. & A. 588, 17 Blatchf. 291, 17 Off. Gaz. 565. Intent to aid is necessary. Snyder v. Bun- nell, 29 Fed. 47; Saxe v. Hammond, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,411, 1 Ban. & A. 629, Holmes 456, 7 Off. Gaz. 781. 66. Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 146, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 692. 67. Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 146, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 692. 68. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kel- sey Electric R. Specialty Co., 72 Fed. 1016; Snyder v. Bunnell, 29 Fed. 47; Coolidge v. McCone, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,186, 1 Ban. & A. 78, 2 Sawy. 571, 5 Off. Gaz. 458; Saxe v. Hammond, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,411, 1 Ban. <& A. 629, Holmes 456. 69. Leeds, etc., Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 154 Fed. 58, 83 C. C. A. 170; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds, etc., Co., 150 Fed. 147; A. B. Dick Co. v. Henry, 149 Fed. 424; Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. Union Elec- tric Mfg. Co., 147 Fed. 266; Canda v. Michi- gan Malleable Iron Co., 124 Fed. 486, 61 C. C. A. 194; American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, 87 Fed. 873; Thomson-Houston Elec- tric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 712, 26 C. C. A. 107 [affirming 78 Fed. 139] ; Ameri- can Graphophone Co. v. Amet, 74 Fed. 789; St. Louis Car-Coupler Co. v. Shickle, etc., Iron Co., 70 Fed. 783 {.affirmed in 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433] ; Stearns v. Phillips, 43 Fed. 792; Travers v. Beyer, 26 Fed. 450, 23 Blatchf. 423; Schneider v. Pountney, 21 Fed. 399; Holly v. Vergennes Mach. Co., 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327 ; Richardson v. Noyes, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,792, 2 Ban. & A. 398, 10 Off. Gaz. 507; Wallace v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,100, 9 Blatchf. 65, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37, 1 Off. Gaz. 117. Contra, Byam v. Farr, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,264, 1 Curt. 260. And see Larochella v. Gauthier, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 87. Selling the ingredients of a composition with the expectation and intent that they be used in making it is infringement. Rum- [XIII, B, 2] 990 [30 Cye.] PATENTS make the seller an infringer if they are capable of other use, 70 and the seller did not intend that they should be used for purposes of infringement. 71 it is not contributory infringement to make and sell parts to licensees under the patent for legitimate purposes of repair, 72 or to make and ship parts abroad, 73 and there is no infringement if the parts are never put into actual use in the patented com- bination. 74 So the doctrine of contributory infringement has no application where the thing alleged to be contributed is one of general use, suitable to a great variety of other methods of use, 75 and especially where there is no agreement or definite purpose that the thing sold shall be employed with other things so as to infringe a patent right. 76 3. SELLING ARTICLE USED WITH PATENTED INVENTION. The sale of an article ford Chemical Works v. New York Baking Powder Co., 136 Fed. 873; Imperial Chemi- cal Mfg. Co. v. Stein, 69 Fed. 616; Celluloid Mfg. Co. f. American Zylonite Co., 35 Fed. 417; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 30 Fed. 437, 35 Fed. 417; Willis v. Mc- Cullen, 29 Fed. 641 ; Alabastine Co. v. Payne, 27 Fed. 559; Bowker v. Dows, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,734, 3 Ban. & A. 518, 15 Off. Gaz. 510; Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,133, 2 Ban. & A. 351, 10 Off. Gaz. 289. One who sells a device, the natural use of which will make the purchaser an infringer, is guilty of contributory infringement. Davis v. Perry, 120 Fed. 941, 57 C. C. A. 231 [re- versing 115 Fed. 333]; Loew Filter Co. v. German-American Filter Co., 107 Fed. 949, 47 C. C. A. 94 [affirming. 103 Fed. 303] ; John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 107 Fed. 290; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. T. Dayton Fan, etc., Co., 106 Fed. 724; American Graphophone Co. v. Haw- thorne, 92 Fed. 516; New York Filter Mfg. Co. i?. Jackson, 91 Fed. 422; Boyd v. Cherry, 50 Fed. 279; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 30 Fed. 437 ; Snyder v. BunnelT, 29 Fed. 47; Alabastine Co. v. Payne, 27 Fed. 559 ; American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 298, 2 Ban. & A. 522, 14 Blatchf. 119; Bowker v. Dows, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,734, 3 Ban. & A. 518, 15 Off. Gaz. 510; Knight v. Gavit, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,884. Merely omitting an element of the com- bination which must be supplied by the user will not avoid infringement. Heekin f>. Baker, 127 Fed. 828 [reversed on other grounds in 138 Fed. 63, 70 C. C. A. 559] ; Bishop, etc., Co. v. Levine, 119 Fed. 363; Red Jacket Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 82 Fed. 432, 27 C. C. A. 204. Making and selling parts separately to be assembled by user is infringement. Lee v. Northwestern Stove Repair Co., 50 Fed. 202 [reversed on other grounds in 58 Fed. 182, 7 C. C. A. 160] ; Strobridge v. Lindsay, 6 Fed. 510; Barnes v. Straus, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,022, 9 Blatchf. 553, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531, 2 Off. Gaz. 62. .Manufacturing an improved element of a patented combination and substituting it in machines sold by the patentee is infringe- ment. National Phonograph Co. v. Fletcher, 117 Fed. 149. Perishable articles. The rule has no appli- [XIII, B, 2] cation to a perishable article which it is the object of the mechanism to deliver and which must be renewed periodically. Morgan En- velope Co. f. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, 14 S. Ct. 627, 3d L. ed. 500. 70. Standard Computing Scale Co. v . Com- puting Scale Co., 126 Fed. 639, 61 C. C. A. 541; Lane v. Park, 49 Fed. 454; Robbins v. Aurora Watch Co., 43 Fed. 521; Winne v. Bedell, 40 Fed. 463; Snyder v. Bunnell, 29 Fed. 47; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,751, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468, 1 Off. Gaz. 471, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 374 [af- firmed in 95 U. S. 274, 24 L. ed. 344]. 71. Where wrongful use intended there is infringement. Gary Mfg. Co. v. Standard Metal Strap Co., 113 Fed. 429; Heaton- Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. t;. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Boyd v. Cherry, 50 Fed, 279; Saxe v. Hammond, 21 Fed. Cas. No, 12,411, 1 Ban. & A. 629, Holmes 456, 7 Off. Gaz. 781; Wallace v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,100, 9 Blatchf. 65, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37, 1 Off. Gaz. 117. 72. O'Rourke Engineering Constr. Co. v. McMullen, 150 Fed. 338; Shickle, etc., Iron Co. v. St. Louis Car-Coupler Co., 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433; Thomson-Houston Elec- tric Co. v. Kelsey Electric R. Specialty Co., 75 Fed. 1005, 22 C. C. A. 1 [modifying 72 Fed. 1016] ; Robbins v. Columbus Watch Co., 50 Fed. 545 [affirmed in 64 Fed. 384, 12 C. C. A. 174]. See also on this point Colum- bus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 52 Fed. 337, 3 C. C. A. 103. 73. Bullock Electric, etc., Co. v. Westing- house Electric, etc., Co., 129 Fed. 105, 63 C. C. A. 607. 74. Campbell v. Kavanaugh, 11 Fed. 83, 20 Blatchf. 256. 75. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co., 148 Fed. 862 [affirmed in 154 Fed. 65, 83 C. C. A. 177] ; Cortelyou v. John- son, 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455 [affirmed in 207 U. S. 196, 28 S. Ct. 105, and reversing 138 Fed. 110]; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, etc., Co., 95 Fed. 669 \ af- firmed in 101 Fed. 831, 43 C. C. A. 479], And see Geis v. Kimber, 36 Fed. 105 ; Millner v. Schofield, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,609a, 4 Hughes 258. 76. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsu- lar Light, etc., Co., 95 Fed. 669 [affirmed in 101 Fed. 831, 43 C. C. A. 479]. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 991 not covered by the claims of a patent but capable of use with the patented inven- tion is ordinarily not infringement. 77 A sale, however, with intent to induce a licensee under the patent to violate the terms of his license agreement is infringement. 78 4. MISCELLANEOUS. Furnishing plans of an infringing device and sharing in the proiits is infringement, 79 and so is the inducing of licensees to violate the con- ditions of a license. 80 C. Suits 1. IN GENERAL. Suit may be maintained at law or in equity to enforce the rights arising from granted patents, 81 or from contracts relating to them. 83 2. JURISDICTION w a. In General. The United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction of suits for infringement of patents whether at law or in equity with- out regard to the citizenship of the parties, 84 and this jurisdiction is vested in the 77. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Per- forated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, 14 S. Ct. 627, 38 L. ed. 500; Wagner Type- writer Co. v. F. S. Webster Co., 144 Fed. 405 ; Gerard v. Diebold Safe, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 889, 4 C. C. A. 644 [affirming 48 Fed. 380] j Bliss V. Merrill, 33 Fed. 39. Sale of article made by patented machine is no infringement. Boyd v. Brown, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,747, 3 McLean 295, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 203. 78. Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 S. Ct. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058 ; Rupp, etc., Co. v. Elliott, 131 Fed. 730, 65 C. C. A. 544; Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Mayhew, 131 Fed. 92 [affirmed in 137 Fed. 596, 70 C. C. A. 557]; Tubular Rivet Co. v. O'Brien, 93 Fed. 200; Heaton-Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728. 79. Trent v. Risdon Iron, etc., Works, 102 Fed. 635, 42 C. C. A. 529 [modifying 92 Fed. 375] ; Toppan v. Tiffany Refrigerator Car Co., 39 Fed. 420. 80. Cortelyou v. Johnson, 138 Fed. 110 [reversed on* other grounds in 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455, and that decision affirmed on other grounds in 207 U. S. 196, 28 S. Ct. 105]. 81. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 629, 4919 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]. Suits in equity may be brought for the infringement of a patent (U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921, amended by Act March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 692 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3395]; Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Morss v. Knapp, 35 Fed. 218; Bragg v. Stock- ton, 27 Fed. 509; Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise, etc., 23 Fed. 82, 23 Blatchf. 86: Brickill v. New York, 7 Fed. 479, 18 Blatchf. 273; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [reversed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662]), and the ordinary rules of equity jurisprudence are applicable (Keyes v. Pueblo ' Smelting, etc., Co., 31 Fed. 560). 82. See, generally, supra, XI. 83. See, generally, COURTS, 11 Cyc. 860, 988. Jurisdiction of actions for infringement against foreign corporations see COURTS, 11 Cyc. 854. 84. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 711; Cochrane V. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139; Ayling 17. Hull, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 686, 2 Cliff. 494. State courts have no jurisdiction of ques- tions involving infringement of patents. Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 6 N. J. Eq. 600; Allison Bros. Co. v. Hart, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 282, 9 N. Y. Suppl. 692; Wilcox, etc., Sew- ing Mach. Co. v. Kruse, etc., Mfg. Co., 14 Daly (N. Y.) 16, 3 N. Y. St. 590. Where there is involved a controverted question as to the validity or infringement of a patent, the federal courts have juris- diction even of suits on contracts. Marsh v. Nichols, 140 U. S. 344, 11 S. Ct. 798, 35 L. ed. 413; St. Paul Plow- Works v. Starling, 127 U. S. 376, 8 S. Ct. 327, 32 L. ed. 251; Pacific Contracting Co. v. Union Paving, etc., Co., 80 Fed. 737; Dunham v. Bent, 72 Fed. 60; Everett v. Haulenbeek, 68 Fed. 911; Seibert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Man- ning, 32 Fed. 625. Where the question of infringement is raised, the federal courts have jurisdiction, although the party also has a remedy by action for breach of contract. Rupp, etc., Co. v. Elliott, 131 Fed. 730, 65 C. C. A. 544. Where the subsisting contract is shown governing the rights of the parties and de- fendant admits the validity and his use of plaintiff's letters patent, the suit cannot be maintained between citizens of the same state in a federal court as arising under the patent laws. Rich V. Atwater, 16 Conn. 409; White v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628, 12 S. Ct. 768, 36 L. ed. 569; Marsh v. Nichols, 140 U. S. 344, 11 S. Ct. 798, 35 L. ed. 413; Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293, US. Ct. 528, 35 L. ed. 193; Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 613, 1 S. Ct. 550, 27 L. ed. 295; Kartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, 25 L. ed. 357; Brown v. Shannon, 20 How. (U. S.) 55, 15 L. ed. 826; Wilson v. San- ford, 10 How. (U. S.) 99, 13 L. ed. 344; Bowers v. Concanon, 105 Fed. 525; Alaska Packers' Assoc. v. Pacific Steam Whaling Co., 93 Fed. 672; Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 113, 2 Cliff. 435; Parker v. Sears, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93. And see COURTS, 11 Cyc. 998. Although the use of the invention and the [XIII, C, 2, a] 992 [30 Cye.] PATENTS various circuit courts, in certain district courts, and in the supreme court of the District of Columbia. 85 The federal statutes confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts of equity equally with courts of law; 86 but their jurisdiction arises only where there are grounds for equitable interference and not where the remedy at law would be full and complete. 87 In this respect the matter of jurisdiction at law is determined by the same general principles that apply in other suits. 88 If it' is not clear that the remedy at law would be adequate, equity lias jurisdiction. 89 b. Suit FOP an Aeeounting. An action for an account of profits and damages alone cannot be maintained in equity where there is no equitable ground of relief. 90 validity of the patent are admitted and a license is alleged, the federal courts may have jurisdiction. White v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628, 12 S. Ct. 768, 36 L. ed. 569; Young Reversible Lock-Nut Co. v. Young Lock-Nut Co., 72 Fed. 62; Elgin Wind Power, etc., Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. 215, 12 C. C. A. 578. Where infringement depends on breach of contract of assignment the breach must be established before the federal courts. Routh v. Boyd, 51 Fed. 821. 85. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 571, 629. Supreme court of the District of Columbia has circuit court jurisdiction. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 139. 86. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921; White v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628, 12 S. Ct. 768, 36 L. ed. 569; McCoy v. Nelson, 121 U. S. 484, 7 S. Ct. 1000, 30 L. ed. 1017; Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. v. Whitehurst, 56 Fed. 589; Kirk v. Du Bois, 28 Fed. 460; Avery v. Wilson, 20 Fed. 856; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,029, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 553; Goodyear v. Hullihen, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,573, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251, 2 Hughes 492; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 {.re- versed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662] ; McMillin v. Barclay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 377. English practice. Court may award dam- ages as well as injunction (Newell v. Wil- son, 2 De G. M. & G. 282, 51 Eng. Ch. 220, 42 Eng. Reprint 880; Tuck v. Silver, Johns. 218, 70 Eng. Reprint 403), and may order infringing article destroyed (Vavasseur v. Krupp, 9 Ch. D. 351, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 437, 27 Wkly. Rep. 176). 87. Root t\ Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Edison Phonograph Co. v. Hawthorne, etc., Mfg. Co., 108 Fed. 630; Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Standard Elevator, etc., Co., 96 Fed. 231; Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. 404 [reversed on other grounds in 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288] ; Drainage Construction Co. v. Chelsea, 41 Fed. 47; Ulman v. Chickering, 33 Fed. 582; Smith V. Sands, 24 Fed. 470; Hayward v. Andrews, 12 Fed. 786; Adams v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. 208, 2 McCrary 360; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [reversed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662]; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 241; Sayles v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. [XIII, C, 2, a] No. 12,424, 4 Ban. & A. 239, 3 Hughes 172, 16 Off. Gaz. 43; Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,897, 3 Ban. & A. 27, 4 Sawy. 280; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,898, 2 Ban. & A. 537, 1 Flipp. 621, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. Where suit is primarily on contract, equity has no jurisdiction, although an account is asked. Perry v. Noyes, 96 Fed. 233. Where bill alleges grounds for equity juris- diction, admissions by defendant cannot oust jurisdiction. Lilienthal v. Washburn, 8 Fed. 707, 4 Woods 65. Jurisdiction is not ousted by cessation of infringement by defendant. Cayuta Wheel, etc., Co. v. Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 127 Fed. 355. Right to injunction gives jurisdiction to a court of equity. Henzel v. California Electri- cal Works, 51 Fed. 754, 2 C. C. A. 495 [af- firming 48 Fed. 375]. 88. Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Woodmanse, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 68 Fed. 489, 15 C. C. A. 520; Brooks v. Miller, 28 Fed. 615. 89. Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 65 Fed. 619; Bick- nell v, Todd, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,389, Fish. Pat. Rep. 452, 5 McLean 236; McMillan v. Bar- clay, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 275, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 377; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,898, 2 Ban. & A. 537, 1 Flipp. 621, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 90. Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Russell v. Kern, 69 Fed. 94, 16 C. C. A. 154 [affirming 64 Fed. 581]; Germain v. Wilgus, 67 Fed. 597, 14 C. C. A. 561 ; American Cable R. Co. v. Citi- zens' R. Co., 44 Fed. 484; Consolidated Mid- dlings Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. 814; Burdell v. Comstock, 15 Fed. 395; Draper r. Hudson, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,069, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327, Holmes 208, 3 Off. Gaz. 354; Jen- kins v. Greenwald, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,270, 1 Bond 126, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37 ; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [reversed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662]; Sayles v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,424, 4 Ban. & A. 239, 3 Hughes 172, 16 Off. Gaz. 43. Contra, Atwood v. Port- land Co., 10 Fed. 283; Smith v. Baker, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,010, 1 Ban. & A. 117, 5 Off. Gaz. 496, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 221. See also infra, XIII,. 0, 2, c. An account is an incident to an injunction and cannot be had otherwise. Smith v. Lon- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 993 Nevertheless, an account may be had where there is ground for equitable interference. 91 e. Expiration of Patent. Where suit is brought upon a patent which has expired, equity ordinarily has no jurisdiction, the proper remedy being at law ; 92 but where expired and unexpired patents are joined, equity may take jurisdic- tion ; 93 and where jurisdiction is once acquired it will not ordinarily be ousted by the expiration of the patent. 94 A preliminary injunction against infringement will not be granted where, before the determination of the motion therefor, the patent sued on has expired. 95 3. PLACE TO SUE. Suit for infringement must be brought in the district of which defendant is an inhabitant, 96 or in the district in which defendant, whether don, etc., R. Co., 2 Eq. Rep. 428, 1 Kay 408, 23 L. J. Ch. 562, 2 Wkly. Rep. 310, 69 Eng. Reprint 173; Price's Patent Candle Co. 17. Bauwen's Patent Candle Co., 4 Kay & J. 727, 70 Eng. Reprint 302. 91. Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 16 App. Gas. (D. C.) 468; McMillin v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., 18 Fed. 260, 5 McCrary 561; Perry v. Corning, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,003, 6 Blatchf. 134. Where jurisdiction acquired accounting may be continued, although impossible to grant the equitable relief. Busch v. Jones, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 23. 92. Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Adams v. Bridge- water Iron Co., 26 Fed. 324; Consolidated Safety- Valve Co. v. Ashton Valve Co., 26 Fed. 319; Lord v. Whitehead, etc., Mach. Co., 24 Fed. 801; Hewitt v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 24 Fed. 367; Campbell v. Ward, 12 Fed. 150. Contra, Gordon v. Anthony, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,605, 4 Ban. & A. 248, 16 Blatchf. 234, 16 Off. Gaz. 1135; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Sayles v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,417, 3 Ban. & A. 219, 5 Dill. 561; Sickles v. Gloucester Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,841, 4 Blatchf. 229, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 222; Stevens v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,401, 5 Dill. 486; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,898, 2 Ban. & A. 537, 1 Flipp. 621, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 93. Huntingdon Dry Pulverizer Co. v. Vir- ginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 130 Fed. 558. 94. Expiration of patent pending suit does not oust jurisdiction, and while preventing injunction will not prevent account. Busch v. Jones, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 23; Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, 7 S. Ct. 1090, 30 L. ed. 1074: Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 7 S. Ct. 217, 30 L. ed. 392; Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 130 Fed. 558; U. S. Mitis Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 122 Fed. 863, 59 C. C. A. 589; Chinnock v. Paterson, etc., Tel. Co., 112 Fed. 531, 50 C. C. A. 384 [reversing 110 Fed. 199] ; Bradner Adjustable Hanger Co. v. Water-bury Button Co., 106 Fed. 735; Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson Sewing Mach. Co., 38 Fed. 586; Kittle v. Rogers, 33 Fed. 49; Kittle v. Schneider, 30 Fed. 690; Kittle v. De Graaf, 30 Fed. 689; Brooks v. Miller, 28 [63] Fed. 615; Adams v. Bridgewater Iron Co., 26 Fed. 324; Dick v. Struthers, 25 Fed. 103; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Peoria Grape Sugar Co., 21 Fed. 878; Adams v. Howard, 19 Fed. 317; Gottfried v. Moerlein, 14 Fed. 170; Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. 597; Bloomer v. Gilpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,558, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50; Imlay v. Norwich, etc., R. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,012, 4 Blatchf. 227, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Davenport 17. Ry- lands, L. R. 1 Eq. 302, 12 Jur. N. S. 71, 35 L. J. Ch. 204, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 53, 14 Wkly. Rep. 243; Fox v. Dellestable, 15 Wkly. Rep.' 194. Where the equitable relief prayed may be T obtained after expiration of the patent the suit may be sustained. Toledo Mower, etc., Co. v. Johnston Harvester Co., 24 Fed. 739, 23 Blatchf. 332. Where patent was about to expire when suit filed and no special ground for equitable interference was shown, the suit was dis- missed. Miller v. Schwarner, 130 Fed. 561; Heap v. Borchers, 108 Fed. 237 ; McDonald v. Miller, 84 Fed. 344; American Cable R. Co. v. Chicago City R. Co., 41 Fed. 522; Racine Seeder Co. 17. Joliet Wire-Check Rower Co., 27 Fed. 367; Davis v. Smith, 19 Fed. 823. Where impossible to obtain final decree be- fore expiration of the patent the suit was dismissed. Bragg Mfg. Co. v. Hartford, 56 Fed. 292; American Cable R. Co. v. Chicago City R. Co., 41 Fed. 522. 95. Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co. v. Vir- ginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 121 Fed. 136. 96. Act March 3, 1897, c. 395, 29 U. S. St. at L. 695 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 588]. Sales anywhere enjoined. Resident of dis- trict may be enjoined from selling anywhere. Hatch v. Hall, 22 Fed. 438; Boyd v. Mc- Alpin, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,748, 3 McLean 427, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 277. Where residence and business are in dif- ferent districts there is no jurisdiction. Goodyear v. Chaffee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,564, 3 Blatchf. 268. In Canada suit must be brought in court nearest defendant's residence. Short v. Federation Brand Salmon Canning Co., 6 Brit. Col. 385, 436; Aitcheson v. Maun, 9 Ont. Pr. 253, 473; Goldsmith v. Walton, 9 Ont. Pr. 10. [XIII, C, 3] 994 [30 Cye.] PATENTS a person, partnership, or corporation, shall have committed acts of infringement, and has a regular and established place of business. 97 In the last case subpoena or process may be served upon the agent conducting the business. 98 4. GROUNDS." To constitute a basis for an infringement suit, there must have been an unauthorized use 1 by defendant of an invention covered by a valid patent owned by plaintiff. 2 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. Under U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4900 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3388], a patentee or his assignee cannot in a suit against infringers recover damages, without alleging and proving either that patented articles made and sold by him, or the packages containing them, are marked " patented," or else that it gave notice to defendants of his patents and their infringement ; 3 and in the event that direct notice to defendants is alleged and proved neither dam- ages nor profits are recoverable, except for infringement after such notice was given. 4 The owner of a patent who has obtained an interlocutory decree adjudg- ing its validity and infringement is not required to wait until it has become final before bringing suit against defendant for infringement by the same device in another district ; nor is he precluded, by the fact that evidence has been taken in the second suit, from pleading therein the final decree when obtained in the first suit as an adjudication. 5 6. DEFENSES 6 a. In General. Defendant may show that he does not use the patented invention. 7 So also he may show that plaintiff is not the owner of the 97. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 101; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 118 Fed. 852; Westing- house Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 116 Fed. 641. Infringement committed in the district is necessary. International Wireless Tel. Co. v. Fessenden, 131 Fed. 491; Streat v. American Rubber Co., 115 Fed. 634; Wilson Packing Co. V. Clapp, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,850, 3 Ban. & A. 243, 8 Biss. 154, 13 Off. Gaz. 368. Place of business in the district at the time of suit is necessary. Feder v. Fiedler, 116 Fed. 378. Defects in allegations and service are waived by appearance. U. S. Consol. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Phoenix Raisin Seeding, etc., Co., 124 Fed. 234. 98. Act March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 695 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 5881. And see Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 41 Fed. 351 [reversed on other grounds in 151 U. S. 186, 14 S. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 121]. Service upon one merely designated agent under state law is insufficient. U. S. Gramo- phone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 106 Fed. 220. Agent and established place of business defined see Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric Co., 101 Fed. 587. 99. Grounds for preliminary injunction see infra, XIII, C, 11, b. Recovery back of payment see PAYMENT. 1. Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct. 193, 30 L. ed. 369; Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 414, 21 L. ed. 766; Ham- macher v. Wilson, 26 Fed. 239 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 662, 12 S. Ct. 991, 36 L. ed. 853] ; Tilghman r. Kartell, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,039, 2 Ban. & A. 260, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 500 [re- versed on other grounds in 99 U. S. 547, 25 L. ed. 357]; Westlake v. Cartter, 29 Fed. [XIII, C, S] Cas. No. 17,451, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 519, 4 Off. Gaz. 636. Use must be unauthorized. Betts v. Will- mott, L. R. 6 Ch. 239, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 188, 19 Wkly. Rep. 369. Proof of infringement is necessary. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288, 24 L. ed. 103. See also infra, XIII, C, 14, b. That infringement must be before suit is brought see Humane Bit Co. v. Barnet, 117 Fed. 316; Slessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. 454, 8 Sawy. 469. 2. Henius v. Lublin, 30 Fed. 838; Miller v. Force, 9 Fed. 603; Knight v, Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Morgan v. McAdam, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 348. Before a patent is granted, no suit can be maintained. Rein v. Clayton, 37 Fed. 354, 3 L. R. A. 78 ; Wj^eth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. 3. Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244, 14 S. Ct. 576, 38 L. ed. 426. And see Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117. Prior to the enactment of the statute under consideration it seems that previous notice or claim of right and exclusive use of device was not essential to enable the patentee to re- cover damages for infringement. Ames ?>. Howard, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 326, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 689, 1 Sumn. 482. 4. Lorain Steel Co. t\ New York Switch, etc., Co., 153 Fed. 205. 5. Bredin v. National Metal Weatherstrip Co., 147 Fed. 741 [affirmed in 157 Fed. 1003]. 6. To suits for permanent injunction see infra, XIII, C, 11, c. 7. See supra, XIII, A, 6. PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 995 patent, 3 or is not entitled to maintain the suit against him thereon, 9 or that the patent upon which suit is brought is void. 10 The fact that the machine of a pat- ent has never been put into commercial use does not preclude the owner of the patent from maintaining a suit in equity to enjoin its infringement. 11 b. Estoppel. The general principles of estoppel apply in suits for infringement. 12 e. Combination in Restraint of Trade. It is no defense to a suit upon a patent that the complainant has made an illegal combination with others in restraint of trade. 18 Failure to deny is admission. Parker v. Bamker, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,725, 6 McLean 631. 8. Bunnett v. Smith, 2 D. & L. 380, 8 Jur. 1634, 14 L. J. Exch. 47, 13 M. & W. 552. And see infra, XIII, C, 7, a. Part ownership of a patent is a complete defense. Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. 697. 9. License is a complete defense (Hapgood V. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226, 7 S. Ct. 193, 30 L. ed. 369; Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 414, 21 L. ed. 766; Barber v. National Car- bon Co., 129 Fed. 370, 64 C. C. A. 40, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1154; Hammacher v. Wilson, 26 Fed. 239 [affirmed in 145 U. S. 662, 12 S. Ct. 991, 36 L. ed. 853]; Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. 872, 20 Blatchf. 106; Black v. Hubbard, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,460, 3 Ban. & A. 39, 12 Off. Gaz. 842 ; Tilghman v. Kartell, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,039, 2 Ban. & A. 260, 9 Off. Gaz. 886, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 500 [reversed on other grounds in 99 U. S. 547, 25 L. ed. 357] ; Westlake v. Cartter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,451, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 519, 4 Off. Gaz. 636), except where its conditions are violated (Jones v. Berger, 58 Fed. 1006; Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. 169; Fetter v. Newhall, 17 Fed. 841, 21 Blatchf. 445). 10. Invalidity is a complete defense, Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Von Schmidt v. Bowers, 80 Fed. 121, 25 C. C. A. 323; Henius v. Lublin, 30 Fed. 838; Shaw v. Colwell Lead Co., 11 Fed. 711, 20 Blatchf. 417; Miller v. Foree, 9 Fed. 603; Knight v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, Taney 106; Morris v. Huntington, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,831, 1 Paine 348, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 448. The defenses are not confined to those men- tioned in U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920, but include any showing that the patent is void. Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 S. Ct. 1027, 30 L. ed. 158; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1042, 29 L. ed. 76; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. ed. 665. 11. Eastern Paper Bag Co. v. Continental Paper Bag Co., 150 Fed. 741 [affirmed in 210 U. S. 405, 28 S. Ct. 748]. And see U. S. Fastener Co. v. Bradley, 149 Fed. 222, 79 C. C. A. 180. 12. Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 5 S. Ct. 788, 29 L. ed. 105; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606, 24 L. ed. 214; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co., 119 Fed. 705; Jennings v. Rogers Silver Plate Co., 118 Fed. 339; Burrell v. Elgin Creamery Co., 96 Fed. 234; Time Tel. Co. v. Himmer, 19 Fed. 322. See also supra, VI, F. Estoppel as assignor. The assignor can- not ordinarily deny the validity of letters patent (Griffith v. Shaw, 89 Fed. 313; Dan- iel v. Miller, 81 Fed. 1000); but the rule does not apply either as against him or his. co-defendants, where the latter are the prin- cipal infringers and he is acting merely as. an employee (Boston Lasting Mach. Co. ?;. Woodward, 82 Fed. 97, 27 C. C. A. 69 [af- firming 75 Fed. 272]), so he may dispute the alleged scope of the patent in view of the prior art (Smith v. Ridgely, 103 Fed. 875, 43 C. C. A. 365; Griffith v. Shaw, 89 Fed. 313). One who fails to perform his agreement to assign a patent cannot sue his proposed as- signee for infringement. Schmitt v. Nelson Valve Co., 125 Fed. 754, 60 C. C. A. 522. Infringer cannot deny utility. Animarium Co. v. Filloon, 102 Fed. 896 [reversing 98 Fed. 103]. Co-complainant cannot license defendant and defeat the suit. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Haberman Mfg. Co., 107 Fed. 487. Non-use or misuse of the invention by com- plainant does not operate as estoppel. Ful- ler v. Berger, 120 Fed. 274, 56 C. C. A. 588. Admissions in open court are binding. Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co., 124 Fed. 764 [affirmed in 128 Fed. 599. 64 C. C. A. 107]. Holder of reissue not estopped to sue one who used the invention prior to reissue. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 C. C. A. 72 [reversing 100 Fed. 849]. Filing an application for patent for the same thing does not estop defendant, but has weight. Haughey v. Lee, 151 U. S. 282, 14 S. Ct. 331, 38 L. ed. 162; R. Thomas, etc., Co. v. Electric Porcelain, etc., Co., Ill Fed. 923. 13. Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 S. Ct. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Re- fining Co., 120 Fed. 672; Otis Elevator Co. V. Geiger, 107 Fed. 131; National Folding- Box, etc., Co. v. Robertson, 99 Fed. 985; Brown Saddle Co. v. Troxel, 98 Fed. 620; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. Smith, 70 Fed. 383; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Sawyer-Man Electric Co., 53 Fed. 592, 3 C. C. A. 605 [modifying 52 Fed. 300]. But see Good v. Daland, 121 N. Y. 1, 24 N. E. 15; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 148 Fed. 21. [XIII, C, 6, e] 996 [30 Cye.] PATENTS d. Limitations and Laches (i) LIMITATIONS. By express provisions of a recent federal enactment no damages can be recovered for acts of infringement occurring more than six years before suit is brought. 14 So by express provision this statute applies to all existing causes of action ; 15 and it is held to apply to actions at law as well as to suits in equity. 16 In all cases where a federal statute of limitation exists, state statutes of limitation can have no application. 17 But prior to 1870, 18 and subsequent to 1874, 19 no federal statutes existed limiting the time within which actions for infringement of patents must be brought, and the question frequently arose whether actions at law were subject to state statutes of limitation, there being considerable conflict in the decisions. 20 This question was finally set at rest by the supreme court of the United States, which held that in the absence of federal legislation the statutes of limitation of the several states were applicable. 21 (n) JLACHES (L) In General (1) As BAB TO PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Mere delay in bringing a suit for infringement, unaccompanied by such deceitful acts or silence on the part of the patentee, and by such circumstances as amount to an equitable estoppel, will not warrant the application of the doctrine of laches to such a suit within the time fixed by statute for the commencement of the analogous action at law. 22 Thus mere delay in bringing suit for infringement of a patent will not prevent the owner thereof from obtaining relief in a court of equity when the infringement has been persisted in with knowledge of the pat- ent, and there have been no acts of commission or omission on the part of the 14. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921, as amended March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 693 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3395]. 15. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921, as amended March 3, 1897. 29 U. S. St! at L. 693 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3395]; Ameri- can Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Pratt, etc., Co., 106 Fed. 229. 16. Peters v. Hanger, 134 Fed. 586, 67 C. C. A. 386. 17. Hayden v. Oriental Mills, 22 Fed. 103; Sayles v. "Louisville City R. Co., 9 Fed. 512; Sayles v. Oregon Cent. R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,423, 4 Ban. & A. 429, 8 Reporter 424, 6 Sawy. 31 ; Sayles v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,417, 3 Ban. & A. 219, 5 Dill. 561; Sayles v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,424, 4 Ban. & A. 239, 3 Hughes 172, 7 Reporter 743, 16 Off. Gaz. 43; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,898, 2 Ban. & A. 537, 1 Flipp. 621, 11 Off. Gaz. 789. 18. Campbell v. New York, 81 Fed. 182; Hayden v. Oriental Mills, 22 Fed. 103; Par- ker v. Hallock, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,735, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543 note; Wood v. Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,941, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550. 19. Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610, 15 S. Ct. 217, 39 L. ed. 280; May v. Logan, 30 Fed. 250. 20. Cases holding that state statutes con- trol. Hayden v. Oriental Mills, 15 Fed. 605; Parker v. Hawk, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,737, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 58. Cases adopting the contrary view. Brickill v. Baltimore, 52 Fed. 737; Brickill V. Buffalo, 49 Fed. 371; California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Starr, 48 Fed. 560; Mc- Ginnis v. Erie County, 45 Fed. 91; May v. Rails County, 31 Fed. 473; May V. Cass [XIII, C, 6, d, (I)] County, 30 Fed. 762; May v. Logan County, 30 Fed. 250; Hayward v. St. Louis, 11 Fed. 427, 3 McCrary 614; Collins v. Peebles, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,017, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 541. 21. Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610, 15 S. Ct. 217, 39 L. ed. 280. 22. Ide t/. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 114 Fed. 939, 52 C. C. A. 559; Imperial Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Stein, 77 Fed. 612, 23 C. C. A. 353 [reversing 69 Fed. 616] ; Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co., 75 Fed. 301, 22 C. C. A. 203; Bragg Mfg. Co. v. Hart- ford, 56 Fed. 292; Price v. Joliet Steel Co., 46 Fed. 107; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 18 Fed. 638, 21 Blatchf. 519; Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Rand, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 626, 4 Ban. & A. 263, 16 Blatchf. 250, 16 Off. Gaz. 87; Stevens v. Felt, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,397. The mere dis- continuance of proceedings against infringers and forbearance to sue any of the parties thereto for a period of a year or more there- after cannot be construed into an acqui- escence in the infringement complained of. Thompson v. Jewett, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,961. Conduct held to constitute laches see Wil- cox, etc., Co. v. Farrand Organ Co., 139 Fed. 46; American Tube Works v. Bridgewater Iron Co., 132 Fed. 16, 65 C. C. A. 636 (three years after knowledge of infringement) ; Meyrowitz Mfg. Co. v. Eccleston, 98 Fed. 437; McLaughlin v. People's R. Co., 21 Fed. 574; Goodyear v. Honsinger, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,572, 2 Biss. 1, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 147 ; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. Conduct held not to constitute laches see New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison, 136 Fed. 600; Carter v. Wollschlaeger, 53 Fed. 573. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 997 patentee to encourage its use, 23 nor where it appears that during the delay another suit was pending for infringement by a machine substantially the same as defend- ant's. 24 An injunction will not, however, be granted in any case where the party applying for it has not shown good faith, conscience, activity, and diligence, nor where there is any doubt or uncertainty as to the facts. 25 So where a patentee, with knowledge of a device made by defendant, makes no claim of infringement for several years, he will be held estopped to thereafter place a different construc- tion on his patent, for the purpose of making out a case of infringement. 26 A patentee cannot maintain an action of infringement against a mere user who, in common with the public generally, has used the patented device for a period of eleven years with the full knowledge of the patentee and without objection. 27 Where there is no acquiescence on the part of the patentee, nor conscious infringe- ment on the part of the defendants, there is no moral delinquency on either side, or an actual estoppel ; and both parties being innocent, diligence will be required of him whose property is to be protected, and the patentee will be left to his action for damages. 28 (2) As BAR TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The granting or withholding of a preliminary injunction in an infringement suit is within the proper discretion of the court. Where a patentee has known of infringement of his patent, and has acquiesced therein for a considerable length of time, a preliminary injunction will not be granted without an explanation of such acquiescence. 29 It will be with- held when apparently sought for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage, 80 for the purpose of creating mischief, 31 or of coercing a compromise. 32 But mere 23. Wilcox, etc., Co. v. Farrand Organ Co., 139 Fed. 46. 24. Flecker v. Poorman, 147 Fed. 528. 25. Cooper v. Mattheys, 6 Fed. Gas. No. 3,200, 5 Pa. L. J. 38. And see Beid-Archer Co. v. North American Chemical, etc., Co., 147 Fed. 746. 26. McGill v. Whitehead, etc., Co., 137 Fed. 97 ; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Wag- ner Electric Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 604. A delay of ten years by a patent owner after knowledge of an alleged infringement, and correspondence with defendant, who in good faith contended for a construction of the patent avoiding infringement, is such laches as will bar all relief in equity. Star- rett v. J. Stevens Arms, etc., Co., 96 Fed. 244. 27. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 55 Fed. 478. 28. Merriam v. Smith, 11 Fed. 588. 29. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 64 Fed. 775; Price v. Joliet Steel Co., 46 Fed. 107; Waite v. Chichester Chair Co., 45 Fed. 258; Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting,, etc., Co., 31 Fed. 560; Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. 37; Mundy v. Kendall, 23 Fed. 591; United Nickel Co. v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 17 Fed. 528, 21 Blatchf. 415; Goodyear v. Honsinger, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,572, 2 Biss. 1, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 147 ; Green v. French, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,757, 4 Ban. & A. 169, 16 Off. Gaz. 215; North v. Ker- shaw, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,311, 4 Blatchf. 70; Sloat v. Plymton, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,948; Sperry v. Ribbans, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,238, 3 Ban. & A. 260; Spring V. Domestic Sew- ing-Mach. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,258, 4 Ban. & A. 427, 16 Off. Gaz. 721 ; Whitney v. Rollstone Mach. Works, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,596, 2 Ban. & A. 170, 8 Off. Gaz. 908; Bovill V. Crate, L. R. 1 Eq. 388; Bridson v. Benecke, 12 Beav. 1, 50 Eng. Reprint 960; Flavel v. Harrison, 10 Hare 467, 17 Jur. 368, 22 L. J. Ch. 866, 1 Wkly. Rep. 213, 44 Eng. Ch. 452, 68 Eng. Reprint 1010; Baxter v. Combe, 1 Ir. Ch. 284. A delay of eighteen months, after knowl- edge of an infringement, in applying for a preliminary injunction, is Of itself good ground for its refusal. Hockholzer v. Eager, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,556, 2 Sawy. 361. A delay of three months in filing a bill after the infringement was ascertained, de- fendant not having been induced to change his position, is no ground for refusing an in- junction. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166. One who is known to the patentee to be using his patent in apparent good faith is entitled to definite and early information of the patentee's construction of his own rights, and of his intention to enforce them. Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,833, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37. A preliminary injunction will not issue against a mere user of a machine, when the patentee has known for several years that the makers thereof were manufacturing such machines and did not warn or proceed against them or any one else. Ballou Shoe-Mach. Co. v. Dizer, 85 Fed. 864. 30. Ney Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co., 56 Fed. 152. 31. Neilson v. Thompson, Web. Pat. Cas. 275. 32. Parker r. Sears, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93, 4 Pa. L. J. Rep. 443. [XIII, C, 6, d, (n), (A), (2)] 998 [SOCyc.] PATENTS forbearance to sue for a reasonable time, after notice given, will not, in the absence of any affirmative encouragement to defendant, affect plaintiff's right to a preliminary injunction in a plain case. 83 Nor will a delay of several years, after knowledge of defendant's infringement, affect the right to a preliminary injunction, where his proceedings had been the subject of dispute and negotia- tion during the whole period. 34 And where it seems apparent that an injunction at the final hearing is inevitable, an injunction pendents lite will be granted, not- withstanding laches of the complainant in asserting his rights. 35 (3) As BAB TO ACCOUNTING FOB PBOFITS. Mere delay in seeking relief against in f ringers is in general sufficient to preclude a patentee from the right to an account for past profits, although it may not prevent an injunction. 86 A fortiori where the infringers have acted in good faith, and there has been acquiescence and inexcusable laches on the part of the patentee, a decree for an accounting will not be granted. 37 It has been held, however, that there must be something more than mere lapse of time to bar an accounting. 88 (B) Excuses For Delay (1) IGNOBANCE OF INFBINGEMENT. Long acquies- cence and laches on the part of a patentee may be excused by satisfactory proof that he had no knowledge or means of knowledge that his patent was being infringed. 39 But a patentee cannot stand by with u easy indifference " when there are facts sufficient to put him on notice, and then plead ignorance as an excuse for his laches. 40 Where the complainant's suspicions of infringement are allayed by the direct misrepresentations of defendant, delay in applying for an injunction does not constitute Jaches. 41 (2) OTHEB EXCUSES. Delay in prosecuting other infringers while the validity of the patent is in active litigation does not constitute laches. 42 So delay in suing an infringer may be excused on the ground that the infringing article, as at first constructed by defendant, was not believed by complainant to be commercially harmful, the grounds for such belief being reasonable. 43 Nor is laches to be imputed to a patent owner because of his failure to prosecute to judgment a suit against an infringer after the latter has become totally insolvent, 44 or when it appears that the complainant was disabled from carrying on litigation by lack of 33. Loring v. Booth, 52 Fed. 150; Collig- 42. Hutter v. Koscherak, 137 Fed. 92; non v. Hayes, 8 Fed. 912. U. S. Mitis Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 122 34. National Heeling-Mach. Co. v. Abbott, Fed. 863, 59 C. C. A. 589 (six months after 77 Fed. 462. adjudication of validity) ; Timolat v. Frank- 35. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. lin Boiler Works Co., 122 Fed. 69, 58 C. C. A. Co., 45 Fed. 241. 405; Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 114 36. Price v. Joliet Steel Co., 46 Fed. 107; Fed. 939, 52 C. C. A. 559; New York Filter New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Mfg. Co. v. Jackson, 91 Fed. 422; New York Sugar Co., 18 Fed. 638, 21 Blatchf. 519. Filter Mfg. Co. v. Loomis-Manning Filter Co., Where a patent has been infringed by de- 91 Fed. 421; Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can fendant for seven years, with the knowledge Co., 57 Fed. 929; Jonathan Mills Mfg. Co. t\ of the complainant, and without a word of Whitehurst, 56 Fed. 589; American Bell Tel. protest, a decree for an accounting will not Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 795; be granted. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Atlantic Giant-Powder Co. v. Rand, 2 Fed. New York Air Brake Co., Ill Fed. 741. Cas. No. 626, 4 Ban. & A. 263, 16 Blatchf. A delay of fourteen years in bringing suit, 250, 16 Off. Gaz. 87; Colgate v. Gold, etc., while the owner of the patent knew that de- Tel. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,991, 4 Ban. & A. fendant was continually engaged in infring- 415, 16 Blatchf. 503, 16 Off. Gaz. 583; Green ing, is a bar to a decree for an accounting. v. French, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,757, 4 Ban. Covert v. Travers Bros. Co., 96 Fed. 568. & A. 169, 16 Off. Gaz. 215, 2 N. J. L. J. 37. Keller v. Stolzenbach, 28 Fed. 81. 148. 38. American Street Car Advertising Co. A patentee is not obliged to proceed against v. Jones, 122 Fed. 803 [reversed on other all infringers at the same time, and ac- grounds in 142 Fed. 974, 74 C. C. A. 236]. quiescence will not be inferred from his 39. Wortendyke v. White, 30 Fed. Cas. No. neglect to do so. McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. 18,050, 2 Ban. & A. 25. Blundell, 11 Fed. 419. 40. New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo 43. Accumulator Co. v. Edison Electric II- Grape Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604. luminating Co., 63 Fed. 979. 41. Wortendyke v. White, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 44. Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. v. New- 18,050, 2 Ban. & A. 25. ell Universal Mill Co., 91 Fed. 661. [XIII, C, 6, d, (II), (A), (2)] PATENTS [30 Cye.] 999 financial means. 45 It is no excuse for delay that his coowners of the patent would not agree to prosecute infringers. 46 (c) Laches of Prior Owner. The negligence or acquiescence of a former owner of a patent in an alleged infringement has, in equity, the same effect upon his assignee's rights as his own neglect or acquiescence. 47 Subsequent purchasers of a patent succeed only to the rights of their assignors and are chargeable with their laches in failing for a considerable time after knowledge of an infringement to take steps to stop it. 48 7. PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE AND PARTIES PLAINTIFF 49 a. In General. A party interested as patentee, assignee, or grantee, 50 and any one holding the patent in 45. Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co., 105 Fed. 63 [affirmed in 115 Fed. 711, 53 C. C. A. 293]. While a patent is in a court of bankruptcy, laches can be imputed to no one. Kittle v. Hall, 29 Fed. 508. It is not the duty of an assignee in bankruptcy to institute suits for the infringement of a patent owned by the bankrupt, and his failure to do so is not negligence. Kittle v. Hall, supra. 46. Richardson v. D. M. Osborne, etc., Co., 93 Fed. 828, 36 C. C. A. 610 [affirming 82 Fed. 95]. 47. Woodmanse, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 68 Fed. 489, 15 C. C. A. 520. 48. New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604; Spring v. Do- mestic Sewing-Mach. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,258, 4 Ban. & A. 427, 16 Off. Gaz. 721, 2 N. J. L. J. 274. A party who purchases a patent which has for years been freely plundered by a multi- tude of trespassers does not answer the charge of laches by showing that he com- menced immediately after he acquired title to bring the wrong-doers to account. Kittle v. Hall, 29 Fed. 508. 49. See, generally, PARTIES. 50. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4919 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]. Until he has parted with his legal title to the patent, the patentee may sue. Phila- delphia, etc., R. Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367, 19 L. ed. 948; Ormsby v. Con- nors, 133 Fed. 548; Freese v. Swartchild, 35 Fed. 141; Still v. Reading, 9 Fed. 40, 4 Woods 345; Hussey v. Whitely, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,950, 1 Bond 407, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; Park v. Little, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,715, 1 Rotb Pat. Cas. 17, 3 Wash. 196; Sanford v. Messer, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,314, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411, Holmes 149, 2 Off. Gaz. 470. Owner necessary party. The legal owner is a necessary party complainant. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 S. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 664; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 536, 6 S. Ct. 934, 29 L. ed. 954; Milwaukee Carving Co. v. Brunswick-Balke Collender Co., 126 Fed. 171, 61 C. C. A. 175; Owatonna Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 94 Fed. 519; Gornmlly, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Cycle Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 279; Carpenter v. Eber- hard Mfg. Co., 78 Fed. 127; Dueber Watch- Case Mfg. Co. v. Fahys Watch-Case Co., 45 Fed. 697; Herbert v. Adams, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,394, 4 Mason 15, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 505; North v. Kershaw, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,311, 4 Blatchf. 70; Potter v. Wilson, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,342, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 102. Joinder. All legal owners must join. Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 324, 3 L. ed. 237; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Netter, 102 Fed. 691; Van Orden v. Nashville, 67 Fed. 331 ; Edgerton v. Breck, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,279, 5 Ban. & A. 42; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Knight v. Gavit, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,884; Stein v. Goddard, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,353, 1 McAllister 82; Valentine v. Marshal, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,812a; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600, 1 Gall. 429, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28. Compare Sheehan v. Great Eastern R. Co., 16 Ch. D. 59, 50 L. J. Ch. 68, 43 L. T. Rep. N. S. 432, 29 Wkly. Rep. 69. Disclaimer. One who appears from record to be part-owner may disclaim ownership. Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 138. Legal and equitable owners should join in equity suit. Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 Fed. 191; Clement Mfg. Co. v. Upson, etc., Co., 40 Fed. 471 ; Otis Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co., 27 Fed. 550 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 646, 10 S. Ct. 1072, 34 L. ed. 553] ; Goodyear v. Allyn, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,555, 6 Blatchf. 33, 3 *Fish. Pat. Cas. 374 ; Goodyear v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,563, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626, 2 Wall. Jr. 356 ; Stimp- son t7. Rogers, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,457, 4 Blatchf. 333. An attorney in fact cannot bring suit. Goldsmith v. American Paper Collar Co., 2 Fed. 239, 18 Blatchf. 82. Selling agent cannot bring suit. Adams v. North British R. Co., 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 367. Only those having interest in patent should be joined as plaintiffs. Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 Fed. 191. Amendment. Suit should not be dis- missed for misjoinder but amendment per- mitted (Tesla Electric Co. v. Scott, 97 Fed. 588), or party dismissed from suit (Edgar- ton v. Breck, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,279, 5 Ban. & A. 42). Technical defense as to legal ownership by complainant is not favored. McMichael, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Ruth, 128 Fed. 706, 63 C. C. A. 304 [reversing 123 Fed. 888] ; Kansas City Hay-Press Co. v. Devol, 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578 [reversing 72 Fed. 717], 84 Fed. 463, 28 C. C. A. 464; A. B. Dick Co. v. Henry, 75 Fed. 388; Kearney v. Lehigh Val- [XIII, C, 7, a] 1000 [30 Cye.] PATENTS trust, including the executor or administrator, may bring suit for infringement in his own name. 51 b. Licenses (i) IN SUITS AGAINST STRANGERS. A licensee of a patent cannot bring a suit in his own name, either at law or in equity, for its infringe- ment by a stranger. 52 An action at law for the benefit of an exclusive license must be brought in the name of the patentee alone. 53 A suit in equity may be ley R. Co., 27 Fed. 699; Graham v. Mc- Cormick, 11 Fed. 859, 10 Biss. 39; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 138. Patentee may sue for past infringement after assigning patent. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 515, 19 L. ed. 37. That territorial assignee may sue without joining patentee see Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Russell v. Kendall, 58 Fed. 381; Canton Steel Roofing Co. v. Kanneberg, 51 Fed. 599; Bicknell v. Todd, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,389, Fish. Pat. Rep. 452, 5 McLean 236; Perry v. Corning, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,004, 7 Blatchf. 195; Washburn v. Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206, 3 Story 122. Assignee of entire interest may sue with- out joining patentee. Waterman v. Macken- zie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Lincoln Ironworks v. W. H. McWhirter Co., 131 Fed. 880; Newton v. Buck, 72 Fed. 777 [reversed on other grounds in 77 Fed. 614, 23 C. C. A. 355]; Rapp v. Kelling, 41 Fed. 792; Siebert Cylinder Oil- Cup Co. v. Beggs, 32 Fed. 790; Herman v. Herman, 29 Fed. 92; Nellis v. Pennock Mfg. Co., 13 Fed. 451; Seibert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. Phillips Lubricator Co., 10 Fed. 677; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,270, 1 Bond 126, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Suydam v. Day, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,654, 2 Blatchf. 20, Fish. Pat. Rep. 88. Assignee of part should join the patentee with him. Yates v. Great Western R. Co., 24 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 495. Conditions in the assignment do not neces- sarily take away the right of assignee to sue alone. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Union Trust Co. v. Walker Electric Co., 122 Fed. 814; Platt V. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co., 59 Fed. 897, 8 C. C. A. 357; Russell v. Kern, 58 Fed. 382; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 46 Fed. 789; Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656; Frankfort Whisky Process Co. v. Pepper, 26 Fed. 336. 51. One holding legal title in trust may sue. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, US. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Bryan v. Stevens, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,066a; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,879, 7 Blatchf. 86; Knight ?;. Gavit, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,884. Executor or administrator may sue. De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 S. Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 138; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Tur- rill, 110 U. S. 301, 4 S. Ct. 5, 28 L. ed. 154; Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, .19 L. ed. 566; May v. Logan [XIII, C, 7, a] County, 30 Fed. 250; Hodge v. North Mis- souri R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,561, 1 Dill. 104, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 161. Assignee of foreign administrator may sue, although no ancillary letters of administra- tion taken out. Smith v. Mercer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,078, 5 Pa. L. J. 529. Heirs need not join administrator. Haar- manri v. Lueders, 109 Fed. 325; Hodge r. North Missouri R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,561, 1 Dill. 104, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 161. Assignee of heirs. One having assignment from heirs after administrator discharged has title and may sue. Winkler v. Stude- baker Bros. Mfg. Co., 105 Fed. 190. Cestui que trust for profits need not be joined. Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566. Mortgagor may sue without joining mort- gagee. Van Gelder v. Sowerby Bridge United Dist. Flour Soc., 44 Ch. D. 374, 59 L. J. Ch. 535, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 132, 38 Wkly. Rep. 625. 52. Watertown v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 S. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768; Paper-Bag Mach. Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 26 L. ed. 959; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Seattle, 117 Fed. 140, 55 C. C. A. 156 ; Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v . Vare, 112 Fed. 63; New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. v. Sullivan, 111 Fed. 179; Chauche v. Pare, 75 Fed. 283, 21 C. C. A. 329; Moore Mfg., etc., Co. v. Cronk Hanger Co., 69 Fed. 998; Brush Electric Co. v. Cali- fornia Electric Light Co., 52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368; Rice v. Boss, 46 Fed. 195; Cottlc v. Krementz, 25 Fed. 494; Bogart v. Hinds, 25 Fed. 484; Wilson v. Chickering, 14 Fed. 917; Gamewell Fire- Alarm Tel. Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 Fed. 255; Blanchard v. El- dridge/ 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,510, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 737, 1 Wall. Jr. 337; Grover, etc., Sew- ing-Mach. Co. v. Sloat, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,846, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 112; Hill v. Whit- comb, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,502, 1 Ban. & A. 34, Holmes 317, 5 Off. Gaz. 430; Nelson v. McMann, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,109, 4 Ban. & A. 203, 16 Blatchf. 139, 16 Off. Gaz. 761; Potter r. Holland, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,329, 4 Blatchf. 206, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; San- ford v. Messer, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,314, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411, Holmes 149, 2 Off. Gaz. 470; Suydam v. Day, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,654, 2 Blatchf. 20, Fish. Pat. Rep. 88. Compare Brammer v. Jones, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,806, 2 Bond 100, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340. 53. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 S. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768; Goodyear v. McBurney, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,574, 3 Blatchf. 32; Nelson v. McMann, PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1001 brought by the patentee and the exclusive licensee together. 54 Indeed, an exclusive licensee may join the patentee with him as party complainant even against his will. 55 But a simple licensee has no such interest as to make him either a neces- sary or a proper party to an infringement suit. 56 Nor is a licensee whose license is not such as to amount to an assignment of the patent a necessary party complainant in such a suit. 57 (n) IN SUITS AGAINST PATENTEE. Where, however, the patentee himself is the inf ringer, the licensee may, to prevent an absolute failure of justice, sue him in equity in his own name. 58 8. PERSONS LIABLE AND PARTIES DEFENDANT 59 a. In Actions at Law. The general principle of law is that all who participate in the infringement of a patent are liable in an action at law for damages which may have been sustained by the patentee by reason thereof. 60 If one joint owner of a patent for a machine uses or sells such patentee's machine without the authority of his coowner as respects the right of the latter, he is liable to an action at law by such coowner for an infringement of the patent. 61 The rule is, both on principle and authority, that servants and agents who make use of or sell for another a patented article are liable in an action at law to the patentee for damages sustained by him. 62 A 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,109, 4 Ban. & A. 203, 16 Blatchf. 139, 16 Off. Gaz. 761. 54. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 S. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768; Paper Bag Mach. Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 26 L. ed. 959 T Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Wool- worth v. Wilson, 4 How. (U. S.) 712, 11 L. ed. 1171; Daimler Mfg. Co. v. Conklin, 145 Fed. 955; New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. v. Sullivan, 111 Fed. 179; Sharpies v. Moseley, etc., Mfg. Co., 75 Fed. 595 ; Dorsey Revolving Harvester Rake Co. v. Bradley Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,015, 1 Ban. & A. 330, 12 Blatchf. 202; Goodyear v. McBurney, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,574, 3 Blatchf. 32; Nelson v. McMann, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,109, 4 Ban. & A. 203, 16 Blatchf. 139, 16 Off. Gaz. 761. When suit by patentee alone improper. The owner of a patent who has granted an exclusive license thereunder for certain ter- ritory cannot, suing alone, recover profits made by an infringer which, but for the in- fringement, would have inured to the sole benefit of the licensee. Bredin v. Solmson, 145 Fed. 944. 55. Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Seattle, 117 Fed. 140, 55 C. C. A. 156; Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. Allen, 104 Fed. 553, 44 C. C. A. 30; Brush Electric Co. v. California Electric Light Co., 52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 49 Fed. 73; Brush-Swan Electric Light Co. v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co., 48 Fed. 224. Licensee and patentee necessary parties. Where an exclusive license has been granted, the licensee and the patentee are both neces- sary parties to an infringement suit. Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. V. Vare, 112 Fed. 63; Hammond v. Hunt, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,003, 4 Ban. & A. 111. 56. Blair v. Lippincott Glass Co., 52 Fed. 226. 57. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Shepherd v. Deitsch, 138 Fed. 83 [reversed on other grounds in 146 Fed. 756, 77 C. C. A. 246] ; Peters v. Union Biscuit Co., 120 Fed. 672; Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Johnson R. Signal Co., 52 Fed. 867 {reversed on other grounds in 55 Fed. 487, 5 C. C. A. 204] ; Nellis v. Pennock Mfg. Co., 13 Fed. 451; Aultman v. Holley, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 656, 11 Blatchf. 317, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 534, 5 Off. Gaz. 3; Potter v. Wil- son, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,342, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 102. 58. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Smith v. Ridgely, 103 Fed. 875, 43 C. C. A. 365; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371; Adriance v. McCormick Har- vesting Mach. Co., 55 Fed. 288 [affirmed in 56 Fed. 918, 6 C. C. A. 168]. 59. See, generally, PARTIES. Liability of counties see 11 Cyc. 497. Liability of municipal corporations see 28 Cyc. 49. 60. Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737; Cramer v. Fry, 68 Fed. 201; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514. See also York, etc., R. Co. r. Winans, 17 How. (U. S.) 30, 15 L. ed. 27. But see United Nickel Co. v. Worthington, 13 Fed. 392, where the court laid down the doctrine that only those persons can be held to damages who own or have some in- terest in the business of making, using, or selling the thing which is an infringement; such doctrine, however, being disapproved in Graham v. Earl, supra. The fact that a postmaster who infringed a patent turned the moneys saved by its use over to the government does not affect his personal liability to such patentee for such infringement. Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. 338. 18 Blatchf. 92. 61. Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,193, 3 Blatchf. 201. 62. Cramer v. Fray, 68 Fed. 201 ; Bryce v. [XIII, C, 8, a] 1002 [30 Cyc.J PATENTS mere purchaser of infringing articles is not liable in an action at law as an infringer. 63 Whenever an agent of a corporation proceeding within the general scope of his powers and of the powers delegated to it by him infringes a patent, the corporation is liable to the patentee in an action at law for damages. 64 So too where a private corporation, as a principal, cooperates with another corpora- tion in the infringement of a patent, it is directly responsible to the patentee in an action at law for the resulting damage. 65 As to whether an action at law may be maintained by a patentee against officers of a corporation which infringes his patent, there is a conflict of authority ; some cases holding that such an action is not maintainable, even where such officers personally conducted the business which constituted the infringement, 66 while other cases hold that such officers, whenever they actually participate in the infringement, are liable. 67 b. In Suits in Equity 68 (i) PERSONS LIABLE (A) Private Corporations and Their Officers. A private corporation is liable in a suit in equity to recover profits resulting from the infringement of a patent by one of its agents while pro- ceeding within the scope of its powers. 69 A suit for an accounting cannot be maintained against an individual who is not alleged to have infringed the patent except in his official capacity as an officer of the corporation charged to have com- mitted the infringement where it is not shown that the corporation is insolvent, 70 or that there is any other obstacle in the way of obtaining full relief against the corporation. 71 But one who in his capacity as officer of a private corporation actively participates in an infringement of a patent by it will be restrained by injunction. 72 (B) Officers of United States. An officer of the United States is personally liable to be sued at law for his own infringement of a patent, notwithstanding all of his acts in relation thereto were performed under orders of the government ; but a suit in equity will not lie as no injunction can be granted. 78 Dorr, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,070, 3 McLean 582, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 302. See also Morse v. Davis, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,855, 5 Blatchf. 40. 63. Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turning Fac- tory v. Jacobs, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,520, 2 Blatchf. 69, Fish. Pat. Rep. 158. 64. Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62. See also York, etc., R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. (U. S.) 30, 15 L. ed. 27. 65. York, etc, R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. (U. S.) 30, 15 L. ed. 27. 66. United Nickel Co. v. Worthington, 13 Fed. 392. Unless he has acted beyond the scope of his powers infringement by a corporation causes no right of action at law for damages against one of its officers individually. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 654, 71 C. C. A. 104. 67. National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514. See also Cahoone Barnet Mfg. Co. v. Rubber, etc., Harness Co., 45 Fed. 582. 68. Liability of counties see 11 Cyc. 497. Liability of municipal corporations see 28 Cyc. 49. 69. Elizabeth . Travers, 70 Fed. 788; De Ver Warner v. Bassett, 7 Fed. 468, 19 Blatchf. 145; Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. 521; Mannie v. Everett, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,039; Orr v. Little- field, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,590, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 323, 1 Woodb. & M. 13 (holding that judgment without contest has weight where there is no collusion) ; Potter v. Fuller, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,327, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251; Spring v. Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,258, 4 Ban. & A. 427, 16 Off. Gaz. 721, 2 N. J. L. J. 274. 36. Refused where conflicting prior adjudi- cations. Eldred v. Breitwieser, 132 Fed. 251; Wilgus v. Van Sickle, 99 Fed. 443; Allen v. Sprague, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 238, 1 Blatchf. 567, Fish. Pat. Rep. 388. In case of conflict the decision in the same circuit controls. Pull- man's Palace-Car Co. v. Wagner Palace-Car Co., 44 Fed. 764. Later decision controls. Pelser v. Geise, 87 Fed. 869. In case of con- flict the best considered will be followed. Pel- zer v. Newhall, 93 Fed. 684; Philadelphia Trust, etc., Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co., 65 Fed. 551, 13 C. C. A. 40; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,855. 37. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. American Transformer Co., 121 Fed. 560 [af- firmed in 130 Fed. 550] ; Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United Indurated Fibre Co., 87 Fed. 215, 30 C. C. A. 615 [reversing 83 Fed. 485]; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Turner, 55 Fed. 979; Carey v. Miller, 34 Fed. 392; Odorless Exca- vating Co. v. Lanman, 12 Fed. 788, 4 Woods 129. But see Duff Mfg. Co. V. Norton, 92 Fed. 921. 38. Palmer v. Mills, 57 Fed. 221; West- inghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Carpenter, 32 Fed. 545; Sessions v. Romadka, 21 Fed. 124; Ely v. Monson, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. [XIII, C, ll,b, (v)] 1014 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS (vi) INDEMNITY BOND. In place of an injunction defendant may be required to give bond conditioned for the payment of all damages awarded. 89 Likewise where an injunction is granted the complainant may be required to give bond to indemnify defendant. 40 Whether such bond shall be required of complainant depends upon circumstances. 41 (vn) APPLICATION AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. Motion for preliminary injunction must be made, supported by the affidavits of the complainant and others to all facts not shown in the bill of complaint necessary to establish his right. 42 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,560, 6 Blatchf. 165; Rogers v. Abbot, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,004, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 465, 4 Wash. 514; Serrell v. Collins, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,671, 4 Blatchf. 61; Smith v. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,106, 3 Blatchf. 545; Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator, etc., Co., 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,710, 6 Blatchf. 496; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,042, 9 Blatchf. 18, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615 [reversed on other grounds in 19 Wall. 287, 22 L. ed. 125]. Injunction refused but defendant ordered to give security and keep an account see Marvel Co. v. Pearl, 114 Fed. 946; Macbeth V. Lippencott Glass Co., 54 Fed. 167; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Chamberlain Plow Co., 36 Fed. 905; American Middlings Purifier Co. v. At- lantic Milling Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 305, 3 Ban. & A. 168, 4 Dill. 100; Blake v. Green- wood Cemetery, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,497, 3 Ban. & A. 112, 14 Blatchf. 342, 13 Off. Gaz. 1046; Blake v. Robertson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,500, 11 Blatchf. 237, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 509; Stain- thorp v. Humiston, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,280, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 311. For cases in which modification of the in- junction was refused see Consolidated Rol- ler-Mill Co. v. Coombs, 39 Fed. 803; Munson V. New York, 19 Fed. 313. 39. Karfiol v. Rothner, 151 Fed. 777; Na- tional Enameling Co. v. New England Enam- eling Co., 123 Fed. 436; Marvel Co. V. Pearl, 114 Fed. 946; Seiler v. Fuller, etc., Mfg. Co., 102 Fed. 344, 42 C. C. A. 386; National Cash- Register Co. v. Navy Cash-Register Co., 99 Fed. 565; Duplex Printing-Press Co. v. Camp- bell Printing-Press, etc., Co., 69 Fed. 250, 16 C. C. A. 220; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co., 56 Fed. 496; Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v. Nixon, 35 Fed. 752; Hoe v. Knap, 27 Fed. 204; New York Belting, etc., Co. v. Magowan, 23 Fed. 596; Greenwood v. Bracher, 1 Fed. 856; Gil- bert, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Bussing, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,416, 1 Ban. & A. 621, 12 Blatchf. 426, 8 Off. Gaz. 144; Goodyear v. Hills, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,57 la, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 134; Howe v. Morton, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769, Fish. Pat. Rep. 586; Irwin v. McRoberts, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,085, 4 Ban. & A. 411, 16 Off. Gaz. 853; Morris v. Shelbourne, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,836, 8 Blatchf. 266, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 377. Computation of amount of bond. In fix- ing the amount of a bond required of defend- ant in a suit for infringement of patents as a condition to the refusing of a preliminary injunction, the amount of the profits made by him from the alleged infringement affords [XIII, C, 11, b, (vi)] the only approximate basis for computation. Karfiol V. Rothner, 151 Fed. 779. Security required only where showing is such as would justify injunction see Ameri- can Middlings Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Mill- ing Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 305, 3 Ban. & A. 168, 4 Dill. 100. Where doubt, bond required in place of in- junction. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co., 106 Fed. 175. Bond not accepted in a clear case in place of injunction see Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage Co., 117 Fed. 314; Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Prieth, 77 Fed. 976; Carter v. Wollschlaeger, 53 Fed. 573; Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Carpen- ter, 32 Fed. 545; McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Bhmdell, 11 Fed. 419; Conover v. Mers, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,123, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 386; Ely v. Monson, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64 ; Morse v. O'Reilly, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,859; Tracy v. Torrey, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,127, 2 Blatchf. 275. But see Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Burton Stock- Car Co., 77 Fed. 301, 23 C. C. A. 174, holding that bond may be accepted in place of in- junction even in a clear case where great in- jury to defendant. 40. Consolidated Electric Storage Co. v. Accumulator Co., 55 Fed. 485, 5 C. C. A. 202 [affirming 53 Fed. 796] ; Shelly v. Bran- nan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,751, 2 Biss. 315, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198. Complainant is liable for injury due to in- junction where final judgment against him. National Phonograph Co. v. American Graph- ophone Co., 136 Fed. 231; Tobey Furniture Co. v. Colby, 35 Fed. 592. 41. Pasteur Chamber land Filter Co. v. Funk, 52 Fed. 146; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,855. 42. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Newton Rubber Works, 73 Fed. 218; American Dia- mond Rock Boring Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 298, 2 Ban. & A. 552, 14 Blatchf. 119; Beane v. Orr, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,176, 2 Ban. & A. 176, 9 Off. Gaz. 255; Gutta Percha, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rub- ber Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,879, 2 Ban. & A. 212, 3 Sawy. 542; Stevens v. Felt, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,397 ; Sullivan v. Redfield, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,597, 1 Paine 441, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 477; Young v. Lippman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,160, 9 Blatchf. 277, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 230, 2 Off. Gaz. 249, 342. Production of documents. Documents re- ferred to should be produced. Siemens-Lun- gren Co. v. Hatch, 47 Fed. 64 ; National Typo- graphic Co. v. New York Typograph Co., 46 Fed. 114. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1015 Defendant may file counter affidavits, 43 and in some jurisdictions the complainant may file rebutting affidavits. 44 \vui) CONSIDERATION AND JUDGMENT ON MOTION. On motion for prelim- inary injunction the court will not undertake to determine disputed and difficult questions of law or fact, 45 nor pass upon the credibility of witnesses. 46 It will, however, consider all pertinent facts which are clearly shown, 47 and will make such order as the equities of the case demand. 48 (ix) MODIFYING OR DISSOLVING. The dissolution or modification of an injunction is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court. 49 Affidavit of third parties see Lombard y. Stillwell, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,472. The court may take judicial notice of mat- ters of common knowledge see Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis Wire-Goods Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 72, 3 Ban. & A. 77, 12 Off. Gaz. 940. English practice application must make out a case and include the allegation that the complainant believes himself to be the first inventor. Whitton v. Jennings, 1 Dr. & Sm. 110, 6 Jur. N. S. 164, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 395, 62 Eng. Reprint 320; Hill v. Thompson, Holt N. P. 636, 3 E. C. L. 249, 3 Meriv. 622, 17 Rev. Rep. 156, 36 Eng. Reprint 239, 2 Moore C. P. 424, 8 Taunt. 375, 20 Rev. Rep. 488, 4 E. C. L. 190; Mayer v. Spence, 1 Johns. & H. 87, 6 Jur. N. S. 672, 8 Wkly. Rep. 559, 70 Eng. Reprint 673; Gardner v. Broadbent, 2 Jur. N. S. 1041, 4 Wkly. Rep. 767; Sturz v. De la Rue, 7 L. J. Ch. O. S. 47, 5 Russ. 322, 29 Rev. Rep. 24, 5 Eng. Ch. 322, 38 Eng. Reprint 1048. 43. Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck, etc., Co., 189 U. S. 57, 23 S. Ct. 562, 47 L. ed. 706; Robinson v. Randolph, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,962, 4 Ban. & A. 163; Wickershaff V. Jones, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,609; Young v. Lippman, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,160, 9 Blatchf. 277, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 230, 2 Off. Gaz. 249, 342. Answer as an affidavit on motion see Good- year v. Mullee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,579, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 420; Parker v. Sears, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93. Answer insufficient as disclaimer of intent to use or sell machines embodying features of the patent see Deere, etc., Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 153 Fed. 177, 82 C. C. A. 351. Admissions by answer see Deere, etc., Co. {v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 153 Fed. 177, 82 C. C. A. 351. Estoppel by averments in answer see Morse Fountain-Pen Co. v. Esterbrook Steel-Pen Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,862, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515. 44. Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck, etc., Co., 189 U. S. 57, 23 S. Ct. 562, 47 L. ed. 706; Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can Co., 57 Fed. 929; Goodyear v. Mullee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,579, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 420; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166; Gibbs v. Cole, Dick. 64, 21 Eng. Reprint 192, 3 P. Wms. 255, 24 Eng. Reprint 1051. 45. Seal v. Beach, 113 Fed. 831; Consoli- dated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co., 73 Fed. 828; American Nicholson Pave- ment Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 312, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189 ; Bailey Wringing Mach. Co. v. Adams, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 752, 3 Ban. & A. 96, 5 Reporter 102; Crowell v. Harlow, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,444, 3 Ban. & A. 478, 18 Off. Gaz. 466; Parker v. Sears, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93; Potter v. Whitney, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,341, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 77, 1 Lowell 87; Sickels v. Youngs, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,838, 3 Blatchf. 293. Evidence insufficient to warrant granting of injunction see Mathews Gravity Carrier Co. v. Lister, 154 Fed. 490; Marconi Wire- less Tel Co. v. American De Forest Wireless Tel. Co., 154 Fed. 74; Hall Signal Co. v. General R. Signal Co., 153 Fed. 907, 82 C. C. A. 653. 46. Sessions v. Gould, 48 Fed. 855 [af- firmed in 63 Fed. 1001, 11 C. C. A. 546] ; Cooper v. Mattheys, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,200, 5 Pa. L. J. 38. 47. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 117 Fed. 309; Irwin v. Dane, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,081, 2 Biss. 442, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 359 ; Morse Fountain-Pen Co. v. Esterbrook Steel-Pen Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,862, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515; Sickels v. Youngs, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,838, 3 Blatchf. 293; Union Paper-Bag- Mach. Co. v. Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166. Verbal admissions by defendant see Jonea v. Merrill, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,481, 8 Off. Gaz. 401; Morse Fountain-Pen Co. v. Ester- brook Steel-Pen Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,862, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515. Where case depends on written instruments court decides. Clum v. Brewer, 5 Fed. Cas, No. 2,909, 2 Curt. 506. Patent not in record not considered see Drainage Constr. Co. v. Englewood Sewer Co., 67 Fed. 141. Parties cannot so frame issues as to pre- vent decision as to patentability or as to scope of claims. Millard v. Chase, 108 Fed. 399, 47 C. C. A. 429. 48. Antisdel v. Chicago Hotel Cabinet Co., 89 Fed. 308, 32 C. C. A. 216; American Mid- dlings Purifier Co. v. Vail, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 308, 4 Ban. & A. 1, 15 Blatchf. 315; Atlantic- Giant-Powder Co. v. Goodyear, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 623, 3 Ban. & A. 161, 13 Off. Gaz. 45; Burr v. Smith, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,196; Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,760, 2 Blatchf. 78, Fish. Pat. Rep. 180; Woodworth v. Edwards, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,014, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 603, 3 Woodb. & M. 524. 49. Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. (U. S.) 650, 12 L. ed. 857; Brown v. Deere, 6 Fed. 487, 2 [XIII, C, 11, b, (ix)] 1016 [30 Cye.] PATENTS c. Permanent Injunction. The right to a permanent injunction ordinarily exists where judgment is in favor of the complainant, 50 but there may be special circumstances which will prevent its issuance. 51 d. Violation and Punishment (i) WRIT OB MANDATE VIOLATED. The writ of injunction cannot be the foundation for an attachment for contempt against McCrary 425; Orr v. Badger, 18 Fed. Gas. No. 10,587, Brunn. Col. Cas. 536; Woodworth v. Rogers, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,018, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625, 3 Woodb. & M. L35. That injunction will not be dissolved on coming in of answer merely denying equity of the bill see Orr v. Littlefield, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,590, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. No. 323, 1 Woodb. & M. 13; Orr v. Merrill, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,591, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331, 1 Woodb. & M. 376. Must overcome equity and evidence see Sparkman v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,208, 1 Blatchf. 205, Fish. Pat. Rep. 110; Woodworth v. Rogers, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,018, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625, 3 Woodb. & M. 135. Motion to dissolve heard upon the same evidence or that which should have been produced see National School Furniture Co. v. Paton, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,050, 4 Ban. & A. 432, 16 Blatchf. 563; Woodworth v. Rogers, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,018, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625, 3 Woodb. & M. 135. Evidence taken too late on the merits can- not be presented on motion to dissolve. Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Newell, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,389, 1 Ban. & A. 113, 11 Blatchf. 549, 5 Off. Gaz. 459. Cases in which motion to dissolve denied see Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Metro- politan Burglar Alarm Co., 31 Fed. 562; Bassett v. Malone, 11 Fed. 801; Richardson v. Croft, 11 Fed. 800; Perry v. Littlefield, 2 Fed. 464; Consolidated Fruit- Jar Co. v. Whitney, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,132, 1 Ban. & A. 356, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 268; Hussey v. Whitely, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,950, 1 Bond 407, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; Potter v. Mack, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,331, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Thompson v. Barry, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,942, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 100; Woodworth v. Hall, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,017, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 517, 1 Woodb. & M. 389; Woodworth v. Rogers, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,018, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625, 3 Woodb. & M. 135. Cases in which motion to dissolve granted see Cary v. Domestic Spring-Bed Co., 26 Fed. 38; Goodyear v. Bourn, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,561, 3 Blatchf. 266; Wilson v. Barnum, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,787, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 635, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 749, 1 Wall. Jr. 347; Wood- worth v. Edwards, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,014, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 610, 3 Woodb. & M. 120. 50. Horton v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 63 Fed. 897; Roemer v. Neumann, 26 Fed. 332; Avery v. Wilson, 20 Fed. 856; Potter v. Mack, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,331, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,134, 2 Ban. 6 A. 386, 11 Off. Gaz. 330; Nunn V. D' Al- buquerque, 34 Beav. 595, 55 Eng. Reprint 765. [XIII, C, 11, e] Although damages granted were only nominal, injunction may be granted. Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 15 S. Ct. 729, 39 L. ed. 895 [affirming 33 Fed. 252]. Not refused because defendant solvent see Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 S. Ct. 747, 46 L. ed. 1058; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; General Electric Co. v. Wise, 119 Fed. 922. Not refused because defendant quits in- fringing see Western Electric Co. v. Capital Tel., etc., Co., 86 Fed. 769; Matthews, etc., Mfg. Co. v. National Brass, etc., Works, 71 Fed. 518; White v. Walbridge, 46 Fed. 526; Kane v. Huggins Cracker, etc., Co., 44 Fed. 287; Facer v. Midvale Steel-Works, 38 Fed. 231; Bullock Printing-Press Co. v. Jones, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,132, 3 Ban. & A. 195, 13 Off. Gaz. 124. Granted although great damage to defend- ant see Edison Electric Light Co. v. United Electric Light, etc., Co., 58 Fed. 572, 7 C. C. A. 375 [affirming 57 Fed. 642]. Granted although patent about to expire see American Bell Tel. Co. v. Western Tel. Constr. Co., 58 Fed. 410; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, Tel., etc., Co., 58 Fed. 409. Granted without verdict of jury see Bu- chanan v. Rowland, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,074, 5 Blatchf. 151, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 341; Good- year v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,569, 2 Wall. Jr. 283. Against whom operative. Permanent in- junction goes against all connected with the infringement. National Mechanical Directory Co. v. Polk, 121 Fed. 742, 58 C. C. A. 24. That permanent injunction means for the life of the patent see De Florez v. Raynolds, 8 Fed. 434, 17 Blatchf. 436. Goods made before expiration of patent. Injunction continues after expiration of pat- ent as to goods made before. American Dia- mond Rock-Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 2 Fed. 356, 18 Blatchf. 146. Contra, Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. 894. Cases in which injunction granted see Na- tional Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 65 Fed. 1001; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Globe Tel. Co., 31 Fed. 729, 24 Blatchf. 522; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. 159; Weeks v. Buffalo Scale Co., 11 Fed. 901; Merriam v. Smith, 11 Fed. 588; Pentlarge v. Beesten, 1 Fed. 862, 18 Blatchf. 38; Potter v. Whitney, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,341, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 77, 1 Lowell 87. 51. Marden v. Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co., 79 Fed. 653, 25 C. C. A. 142; Many v. Sizer, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,057, I Fish* Pat. Cas. 31. Permanent injunction refused where not necessary and allowance injurious to public. Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Man- hattan R. Co., 49 Fed. 930; Ballard v. Pitts- burg, 12 Fed. 783; Bliss v. Brooklyn, 3 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1017 any person, except perhaps a defendant served with the bill of complaint, where it refers merely to the bill for a description of the thing enjoined. 52 (n) KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE. According to tiie modern practice, actual serv- ice of an order of injunction upon the person sought to be restrained from infring- ing a patent is not requisite to lay the foundation of a proceeding against him for contempt, 53 actual notice of such order of injunction being deemed sufficient. 54 (in) WHO LIABLE. Defendants as individuals are in contempt if they organ- ize a company and continue infringement, 55 and it is the duty of a defendant enjoined from making or selling a patented article to take such steps as will pre- vent violation of the injunction by employees, and a line will be imposed for con- tempt where the injunction is violated by employees. 56 One who knowingly assists another in violating an injunction is guilty of contempt. 57 An officer of defendant corporation who continues infringement individually after injunction is guilty of contempt. 58 A person pending suit is riot bound to obey an injunction not directed to him. 59 (iv) ACTS OR CONDUCT CONSTITUTING VIOLATION. Although the command of an injunction against the infringement of a patent must be explicitly obeyed, yet it is the spirit and not the letter of the injunction which must be obeyed ; w hence, no subterfuge amounting to a substantial violation of the injunction will be allowed to succeed merely because not contrary to the letter of the prohibitory clause. 61 Advertising for sale articles which have been adjudged infringements Fed. Gas. No. 1,544, 8 Blatchf. 533, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 596. 52. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,517, 4 Blatchf. 190. 53. Christensen Engineering Co. v. West- inghouse Air-Brake Co., 135 Fed. 774, 68 C. C. A. 476. 54. Christensen Engineering Co. v. West- inghouse Air-Brake Co., 135 Fed. 774, 68 C. C. A. 476. See also Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 124 Fed. 736 [affirmed in 129 Fed. 1005, 64 C. C. A. 122]. Injunction ordered but not issued. The rule is that where an injunction against the infringement of a patent has been ordered, a party who, having knowledge of that order, deliberately violates the injunction ordered, although not yet issued, is guilty of con- tempt of court. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minne- sota Moline Plow Co., 124 Fed. 736 [affirmed in 129 Fed. 1005, 64 C. C. A. 122], holding, however, that, in order to convict a person of contempt under such circumstances, it must be shown clearly that he had knowledge of the order of the injunction in such a way that it can be held that he understood it, and with that knowledge committed wilful violation of the order. 55. Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 130 Fed. 893 ; Iowa Barb Steel-Wire Co. v. South- ern Barbed- Wire Co., 30 Fed. 123. 56. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Chris- tensen Engineering Co., 121 Fed. 562; Mundy v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co. 34 Fed. 541 ; Phillips v. Detroit, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,101, 3 Ban. & A. 150, 2 Flipp. 92, 16 Off. Gaz. 627; Pot- ter v. Muller, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,333, 1 Bond 601, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 631. 57. Hamilton v. Diamond Drill, etc., Co., 137 Fed. 417, 69 C. C. A. 532; Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 132 Fed. 978, 130 Fed. 893; Welsbach Light Co. v. Daylight Incan- descent Gaslight Co., 97 Fed. 950; Goodyear v. Mullee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,577, 5 Blatchf. 429, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 209. Illustrations. One who with knowledge of an injunction enjoining certain persons from infringement takes over their business and continues it in collusion with them is guilty of contempt. Hamilton v. Diamond Drill, etc., Co., 137 Fed. 417, 69 C. C. A. 532; Dia- mond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 132 Fed. 978, 130 Fed. 893. Assisting another inf ringer in a suit contesting the validity of the patent is contempt. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gil- lett, 30 Fed. 683. 58. Janney v. Pancoast International Ven- tilator Co., 124 Fed. 972; Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. 920; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279, 4 Blatchf. 493, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,463, 1 Ban. & A. 105, 5 Off. Gaz. 460. A person acting only officially is not liable. Phillips v. Detroit, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,101, 3 Ban. & A. 150, 2 Flipp. 92, 16 Off. Gaz. 627. 59. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. 685. 60. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. 683. 61. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. 683; Burr v. Kimbark, 29 Fed. 428; Colgate t'. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,992, 4 Ban. & A. 559, 17 Off. Gaz. 193; Craig t;. Fisher, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,332, 2 Sawy. 345; Hamilton v. Simons, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,991, 5 Biss. 77; Phillips v. Detroit, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,101, 3 Ban. & A. 150, 2 Flipp. 92, 16 Off. Gaz. 627; Potter v. Muller, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,333, 1 Bond 601, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 631. And see Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Leeds, etc., Co., 150 Fed. 147. Illustrations. Where the principle in- volved in a patent is the point in issue in a suit to restrain its infringement, defendant [XIII, C, 11, d, (iv)] 1018 [30 Cye.] PATENTS of complainant's patent, and the sale of which has been enjoined, does not in itself constitute a breach of the injunction ; 63 but advertising the articles enjoined, in defiance of the precise terms of the injunction, is strong evidence of the violation of the injunction, and requires positive proof on the part of defendant to the con- trary. 63 An injunction against the sale of an infringing article is violated by the sale of such article outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction, whether the article was sent within such jurisdiction or not. 64 (v) DEFENSES. The fact that the writ was erroneously granted furnishes no excuse for its violation, 65 the remedy in such case being by appeal or writ of error. 66 Temptation due to financial straits is no excuse for violation of an injunc- tion, 67 nor is the advice of counsel, 63 nor, good faith or absence of intention to infringe, 69 nor a misnomer in the injunction. 70 So the fact that the infringing machine is made according to a junior patent is no excuse. 71 That the injunction was granted upon a patent which has since been materially altered by disclaimer constitutes a defense to the proceeding. 72 And an injunction against the infringe- ment of a patent for an invention consisting of the combination of known appli- ances is not violated by using the combination after the expiration of the patent. 73 (vi) PROCEEDINGS TO PUNISH (A) Notice. Generally the rule obtains that, before a party who has violated an injunction against infringing a patent can be punished for contempt, it must appear that he has been served with notice of the proceedings therefor. 74 commits a breach of a preliminary injunction and is punishable for contempt where, for the purpose of evading the injunction, he continues to manufacture articles involving the same principle, with but slight modi- fications of structure. Burr v. Kimbark, 29 Fed. 428. Where a party who has been en- joined from infringing a patent by manu- facturing or selling the infringing article continues to sell as the agent of another, he is guilty of contempt, and is liable to attach- ment. Potter v. Muller, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 11,333, 1 Bond 601, 2 Fish. Pat. Gas. 631. 62. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Mo- line Plow Co., 124 Fed. 736. See also Allis v. Stowell, 19 Off. Gaz. 727. 63. Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. 920. 64. Macauley v. White Sewing Mach. Co., 9 Fed. 698. Sending infringing article to foreign coun- try or selling it there. A sale in Canada, to be there used, of articles patented by letters patent of the United States, Canada being a territory in which the patentee had no ex- clusive right, cannot be regarded as in con- tempt of an injunction not in future to make or sell in violation of the patent. Gould v. Sessions, 67 Fed. 163, 14 C. C. A. 366. And the making and selling of a single element of a patented combination, with the purpose and expectation that such element should be sent to a foreign country, and be there used in combination with other elements, or in the practice of a method covered by the patent, is not contributory infringement, inasmuch as there was no intent that the elements should be put to an infringing use, the protection of the patent not extending beyond, the limits of the United States. Bul- lock Electric, etc., Co. v. Westinghouse, etc., Co., 129 Fed. 105, 63 C. C. A. 607. 65. Roener v. Newman, 19 Fed. 98; Craig V. Fisher, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,332, 2 Sawy. [XIII, C, 11, d, (iv)] 345; Phillips v. Detroit, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,101, 3 Ban. & A. 150, 2 Flipp. 92, 16 Off. Gaz. 627; Valentine v. Reynolds, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,813; Whipple v. Hutchinson, 2y Fed. Cas. No. 17,517, 4 Blatchf. 190. 66. Craig v. Fisher, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,332, 2 Sawy. 345. 67. A. B. Dick Co. v. Henry, 88 Fed. 80. 68. Calculagraph Co. v. Wilson, 136 Fed. 196; Paxton v. Brinton, 126 Fed. 542; Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging, etc., Co., 99 Fed. 745; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gil- lett, 30 Fed. 683; Burr v. Kimbark, 29 Fed. 428. Contra, Goss Printing Press Co. v. Scott, 134 Fed. 880; Hamilton v. Simons, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,991, 5 Biss. 77. Judgment of court. Defendant should get the judgment of the court whether changes made avoid infringement. Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging, etc., Co., 99 Fed. 745; Hamilton v. Simons, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,991, 5 Biss. 77. 69. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. 683. And see Robinson v. S. & B. Led- erer Co., 146 Fed. 993. Trivial violation. One will not be pun- ished for the violation of an injunction re- straining the use of articles infringing a patent when he has made an honest effort to remove the offending articles from the premises where they were used, although, by oversight, a few articles remain. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Goelet, 65 Fed. 612. 70. Dickerson v. Armstrong, 94 Fed. 864. 71. Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can Co., 59 Fed. 137. And see Valentine v. Reynolds, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,813. 72. Dudgeon v. Thomson, 3 App. Cas. 34. 73. Johnson v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 147, 2 L. R. A. 489. 74. Christensen Engineering Co. v. West- inghouse Air-Brake Co., 135 Fed. 774, 68 PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1019 (B) Evidence. The rules of evidence governing in proceedings to punish the violation of injunctions in general apply to proceedings to punish the violation of injunctions in patent cases. 75 (c) Hearing and Determination. On the hearing of the motion the question as to whether the machine constructed is the same as the old one enjoined is one of fact to be determined on the evidence. 76 Where a court issues an injunction to prevent the infringement of a patent solely upon the authority of a decision in another circuit, in a suit between the same parties, it will, on the hearing of a motion for an attachment for contempt in violating the injunction, follow the construction which was placed upon the patent in such other circuit. 77 If the violation of an injunction against the infringing of a patent, either as to its char- acter or the fact of its commission, is doubtful upon the proofs, the court will remit the party to his right to h'le a supplemental bill in the original suit, 78 or to institute a new and plenary action. 79 However, where the violation of an injunc- tion is wilful, the summary method of correction is imperative, and will not be arrested by the fact that the proofs of violation are conflicting, or that the things used by defendant are in some respects different from those interdicted. 80 A C. C. A. 476, holding, however, that where notice of the commencement of contempt pro- ceedings was properly given to defendant's attorney, and, under order of court, notice of the application for attachment and a copy of the affidavits to be issued thereon, were sent to defendant by registered mail and re- turned marked " Refused," defendant not having controverted the charge of contempt, an objection that the notice of the proceed- ing was not properly served is not well taken. 75. See INJUNCTIONS, 22 Cyc. 1023. Presumptions. Machines designated by the same name and made by the same com- pany as the machines containing infringing devices, the manufacture and sale of which were enjoined, will be presumed to be the same, in the absence of any denial, in pro- ceedings to punish a violation of the in- junction. Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. 920. De- fendant, four months before the service of an injunction on him, executed a bond to plaintiff, acknowledging the validity of his patent and his right to all that was granted by it. It was held that the bond was no evidence of a breach of the injunction further than the recital that defendant had infringed the patent might have a tendency to estab- lish such breach, and that the inference of presumption arising from it might be over- come by credible and positive testimony, proving no infringement. Byam v. Eddy, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,263, 2 Blatchf. 521, 24 Vt. 666. Burden of proof. The burden of proof es- tablishing the violation of the injunction rests with complainant. Accumulator Co. v. Consolidated Electric Storage Co., 53 Fed. 793. Admissibility. On a motion for attach- ment for contempt for violating an injunc- tion issued to restrain the infringement of a patent, after a construction has been given to a patent by the court, no testimony is admissible to vary such construction. Bur- dett v. Estey, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,146, 4 Ban. & A. 141, 16 Blatchf. 105. Affidavits to show that the patentee was not the first and original inventor of the thing patented are immaterial and irrelevant. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,517, 4 Blatchf. 190. It is a matter of discretion whether the court will receive expert testi- mony on the question of infringement, or will examine the alleged infringing articles for itself. Burdett v. Estey, supra. Weight and sufficiency. The evidence of a breach of an injunction must be clear to authorize punishment therefor. Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co., 45 Fed. 129; Smith v. Halkyard, 19 Fed. 602; Bird- sell v. Hagerstown Agricultural Implement Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,436, 2 Ban. & A. 519, 1 Hughes 59, 11 Off. Gaz. 420. 76. Birdsell v. Hagerstown Agricultural Implement Mfg. Co., 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,436, 2 Ban. & A. 519, 1 Hughes 59, 11 Off. Gaz. 420. 77. Accumulator Co. v. Consolidated Elec- tric Storage Co., 53 Fed. 793. 78. Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 48 Fed. 453; Allis t?. Stowell, 15 Fed. 242. 79. U. S. Playing-Card Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 822; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 48 Fed. 453; Truax v. Detweiler, 46 Fed. 117; Pennsylvania Diamond-Drill Co. v. Simpson, 39 Fed. 284; Temple Pump Co. v. Goss Pump, etc., Co., 31 Fed. 292; Wirt v. Brown, 30 .Fed. 187; Allis v. Stowell, 15 Fed. 242; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Eastman, 11 Fed. 902; Putnam v. Hollender, 11 Fed. 75; Liddle v. Cory, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,338, 7 Blatchf. 1. A consent decree against de- fendant for damages and a perpetual in- junction is not such a general decree in favor of complainant as will allow him to obtain an attachment for violation of the injunction upon motion, but if he desires to enjoin the alleged infringement it must be done by a bill in the usual way. Howard v. Mast, etc., Co., 33 Fed. 867; Highby v. Columbia Rub- ber Co., 18 Fed. 601. 80. Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,463, 1 Ban. & A. 105, 5 Off. Gaz. 460. [XIII, C, 11, d, (vi), (c)] 1020 [30 eye.] PATENTS motion for an attachment may be denied without prejudice to the rights of the same question of infringement on the accounting under the interlocutory decree. 81 (vn) PUNISHMENT (A) Matters Considered in Mitigation. The fact that the injunction was erroneously issued may be considered in mitigation of punish- ment, 82 as may the fact that the acts in violation were without intention to disobey the injunction. 83 (B) Amount of Fine. The amount of the fine assessed for the violation of the injunction is within the sound discretion of the court. 84 As contempt in the violation of injunctions in a patent case is a criminal offense, the fine should bear a just proportion to the magnitude of the offense, and ought not in general to exceed such amount as would ordinarily be imposed as a fine when paid over to the government. 85 A light fine will be imposed where the violation was probably unintentional. 86 (o) Distribution of Fine. The court may direct payment to the complainant of a part or all of the fine imposed, as a compensation for his time and outlay in prosecuting the application ; 87 but the court will not compensate complainant for any profits or damages resulting from the infringement involved in the violation of the injunction. 88 (vm) COSTS. Where the injunction has been violated, and defendant is pro- tected from the consequences only by a defect in the service of the writ, no costs will be allowed to him on denial of a motion for an attachment for such violation. 89 12. DAMAGES .AND PROFITS 90 a. Damages in Actions at Law (i) RIGHT TO RECOVER AND FORM OF ACTION. Damages for the infringement of a patent may be recovered by an action at law, 91 the proper action being trespass on the case. 93 (n) AMOUNT RECOVERABLE (A) In General. Plaintiff is entitled to a ver- dict only for the actual damages sustained by him because of and during the time of the infringement for which the suit was brought, 93 and not to exemplary 81. Burdett V. Estey, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,146, [affirmed in 129 Fed. 1005, 64 C. C. A. 122] ; 4 Ban. & A. 141, 16 Blatchf. 105. Macaulay v. White Sewing Mach. Co., 9 Fed. 82. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Chris- 698. But see Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. 716. tensen Engineering Co., 128 Fed. 749. 89. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 29 Fed. Cas. 83. In re De Forest Wireless Tel. Co., 154 No. 17,517, 4 Blatchf. 190. Fed. 81 ; Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can Co., 80. Damages generally see DAMAGES. 59 Fed. 137; Morss v. Domestic Sewing- 91. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4919 [U. S. Mach. Co., 38 Fed. 482; Bate Refrigerating Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Birdsall v. Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. 683 ; Iowa Barb Steel- Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802 ; Harper, Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed-Wire Co., 30 etc., Co. v. Wilgus, 56 Fed. 587, 6 C. C. A. Fed. 615; Carstaedt v. U. S. Corset Co., 5 45; Bragg v. Stockton, 27 Fed. 509; Living- Fed. Cas. No. 2,468, 2 Ban. & A. 331, 13 ston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Blatchf. 371, 10 Off. Gaz. 3; Phillips v. De- Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [reversed on troit, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,101, 3 Ban. & A. other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662]. 150, 2 Flipp. 92, 16 Off. Gaz. 627. See also 92. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4919 [U. S. Goodyear v. Mullee, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,577, Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Byam v. Bul- 5 Blatchf. 429, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 209. lard, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,262, 1 Curt. 100; 84. Morss v. Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co., Stein v. Goddard, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,353, 38 Fed. 482; Iowa Barb Steel-Wire Co. v. McAllister 82. Southern Barbed- Wire Co., 30 Fed. 615; 93. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 Carstaedt v. U. S. Corset Co., 5 Fed. Cas. L. ed. 802; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747; No. 2,468, 2 Ban. & A. 331, 13 Blatchf. 371, National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute 10 Off. Gaz. 3. Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Allen v. Blunt, 1 85. Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. 716. Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 86. Frank v. Bernard, 146 Fed. 137. Woodb. & M. 121; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. 87. Christensen Engineering Co. v. West- Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. inghouse Air-Brake Co., 135 Fed. 774, 68 512; Hayden v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. C. C. A. 476; Cary Mfg. Co. v. Acme Flexible No. 6,26*1, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 86 [affirmed in Clasp Co., 108 Fed. 873, 48 C. C. A. 118; 3 Wall. 315, 18 L. ed. 76]; Ransom v. New Macaulay v. White Sewing Mach. Co., 9 Fed. York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573, 1 Fish. Pat. 698. Cas. 252 ; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 88. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Mo- 13,057. line Plow Co., 124 Fed. 735, 61 C. C. A. 57 No damages for use before patent are al- [XIII, C, 11, d. (VI), (C)] PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1021 damages. 94 Damages are to be measured by the actual loss to plaintiff, 95 which must be shown. 96 It may be shown by any means which will best establish the loss. 97 lowable. Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 137, 5 Sawy. 808. On reissue no damages before date of re- issue are allowable. Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177. Damages limited to direct effect and the use of the particular invention patented see Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512. 94. Buck v. Hermance, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,082, 1 Blatchf. 398, Fish. Pat. Rep. 251; Hall -v. Wiles, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,954, 2 Blatchf. 194, Fish. Pat. Rep. 433; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,727, 3 Blatchf. 209; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441; Wash- burn v. Gould, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206, 3 Story 122; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40. Contra, Parker v. Corbin, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,731, 4 McLean 462, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 736. 95. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802; Cassidy v. Hunt, 75 Fed. 1012; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747; Earle V. Sawyer, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,247, 4 Mason- 1, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 490 ; Goodyear v. Bishop, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,559, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 154; La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,961, 2 Ban. & A. 561; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40; United Horseshoe, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 13 App. Cas. 401, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 561. Profits which plaintiff might have made but for the infringement a're the damages re- coverable. McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240 [reversed in part in 16 How. 480, 14 L. ed. 1024], 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,727, 3 Blatchf. 209 [affirmed in 19 How. 96, 15 L. ed. 557] ; Rice v. Heald, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,752 [reversed on other grounds in 104 U. S. 737, 26 L. ed. 910]. Damages include not only the loss upon the patented device but the loss of other profits which would have accompanied it. Hawes v. Washburne, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,242, 5 Off. Gaz. 491. Where plaintiff did not mark his articles " patented " nominal damages only are re- coverable. McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117. Where employee innocently infringes dam- ages are nominal. Bryce V. Dorr, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,070, 3 McLean* 582, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 302. Making invention without using it gives only nominal damages. Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40. Where there is no established license-fee and no use of the invention save by defend- ant there is no loss to plaintiff and only nominal damages can be awarded. Seattle v. McNamara, 81 Fed. 863, 26 C. C. A. 652. Where there is no damage or loss suit will not lie. Byam 17. Bullard, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,262, 1 Curt. 100. Part of machine covered by patent. The estimation of damages must be confined to the particular part of the machine covered by the patent upon which suit is brought. Mc- Creary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 141 U. S. 459, 12 S. Ct. 40, 35 L. ed. 817; Fischer v. Hayes, 22 Fed. 529 ; Burdell v. Denig, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,142, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Wayne v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,303, 1 Bond 27, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 20. Entire damage may be assessed where the entire value is due to the patented feature. Hunt Bros Fruit-Packing Co. v. Cassiday, 64 Fed. 585, 12 C. C. A. 316; Fifield v. Whitte- more, 33 Fed. 835. Injury to business by unfair competition not included in damages. Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,368a; United Horse Shoe, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 13 App. Cas. 401, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 561. But see American- Braided Wire Co. v. Thomson, 44 Ch. D. 274, 59 L. J. Ch. 425, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 616 [reversing 38 Wkly. Rep. 329]. Damages for separate patents sued on need not be apportioned. Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. 169. 96. Robertson v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245; Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 460, 21 L. ed. 679; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Fed. 652, 48 C. C. A. 588; Lee v. Pills- bury, 49 Fed. 747. See also infra, XIII, C, 14, "h. Where the amount of actual loss is not shown, nominal damages only can be awarded. Coupe 17. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263 ; New York v. Ransom, 23 How. (U. S.) 487, 16 L. ed. 515; Boston v. Allen, 91 Fed. 248, 33 C. C. A. 485; Houston, etc., R. Co. 17. Stern, 74 Fed. 636, 20 C. C. A. 568 ; Hunt Bros. Fruit-Packing Co. v. Cassidy, 53 Fed. 257, 3 C. C. A. 525 ; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747; Royer 17. Schultz Belting Co., 45 Fed. 51 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 515, 14 S. Ct. 1152, 38 L. ed. 1075]; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. 17. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Proctor v. Brill, 4 Fed. 415; Bur- dell 17. Denig, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,142, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588; Poppenhusen 17. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,283, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62; Rollhaus 17. McPherson, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,026; Smith 17. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058. 97. Suffolk Mfg. Co. 17. Hayden, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315, 18 L. ed. 76; Singer Mfg. Co. 17. Cramer, 109 Fed. 652, 48 C. C. A. 588; Hunt Bros. Fruit Packing Co. 17. Cassiday, 64 Fed. 585, 12 C. C. A. 316; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747; Goodyear v. Bishop, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,559, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 154; Berdon Fire-Aims Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 26 Ct. 01. 48 [XIII, C, 12, a, (n), (A)] 1022 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS License-fees charged others may be used as guides. 98 Where there is no other means of estimating damages the profits derived by the infringer may be considered," [affirmed in 156 U. S. 552, 15 S. Ct. 420, 39 L. ed. 530]; McKeever v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 396. Where patentee does not license others but manufacturers, it is to be presumed tbxt he would have made all infringing sales. Rose v. Hirsh, 94 Fed. 177, 36 C. C. A. 132. It will not be presumed, however, that plaintiff would have sold the same number as infringer at a higher price. Jennings t\ Rogers Silver Plate Co., 118 Fed. 339. Evidence of settlement with others not competent nor is royalty paid by defendant to others. International Tooth Crown Co. v. Hank's Dental Assoc., Ill Fed. 916; Ewart Mfg. Ob. v. Bcldwin Cycle-Chain Co., 91 Fed. 262; Westcott v. Rude, 19 Fed. 830; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514. Prior judgment upon different evidence does not fix value. Blake v. Greenwood Ceme- tery, 16 Fed. 676, 21 Blatchf. 222. 98. Established license-fees may be taken as the measure of damages. Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 7 S. Ct. 217, 30 L. ed. 392; Washington, etc., Steam Packet Co. v. Sickles, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 611, 22 L. ed. 203; Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 460, 21 L. ed. 679; Seymour v. McCormick, 16 How. (U. S.) 480, 14 L. ed. 1024; Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Leeds, etc., Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 154 Fed. 58, 83 C. C. A. 170; Cassidy v. Hunt, 75 Fed. 1012; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Stern, 74 Fed. 636, 20 C. C. A. 568 ; Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. 169; McDonald v. Whitney, 39 Fed. 466; Cary v. Lovell Mfg. Co., 37 Fed. 654; May v. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. 642; Wooster v. Simonson, 20 Fed. 316; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Emerson v. Sirnm, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,443, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 281, 3 Off. Gaz. 293; Goodyear v. Bishop, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,559, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 154; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [re- versed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662] ; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,727, 3 Blatchf. 209; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 8 Pittsb. Leg. J. (Pa.) 361; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Crossman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,320, 4 Ban. & A. 566; Penn v. Jack, L. R. 5 Eq. 81, 37 L. J. Ch. 136, 17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 407, 16 Wkly. Rep. 243; United Tel. Co. v. Walker, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 508. But a license-fee is not an arbitrary guide and need not be followed unless circumstances warrant it. Birdsall v. Ccolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802 ; Keller v. Stolzenbaugh, 43 Fed. 378; Colgate v. Western Electric Co., 28 Fed. 146; Wooster v. Thornton, 26 Fed. 274 [af- firmed in 136 U. S. 651, 10 S. Ct. 1074, 34 L. ed. 550] ; Campbell v. Barclay, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,353, 5 Biss. 179; Sickels v. Borden, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,832, 3 Blatchf. 535. [XIII, C, 12, a, (II), (A)] To serve as a guide the license-fees must be established and uniform and made under such circumstances as to indicate the real value. Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L. ed. 888 ; International Tooth Crown Co. V. Hank's Dental Assoc., Ill Fed. 916; Royer V. Shultz Belting to., 45 Fed. 51 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 515, 14 S. Ct. 1152, 38 L. ed. 1075] ; Hammacher -17. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796; Bates v. St. Johnsbury, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 628; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. 642; Westcott v. Rude, 19 Fed. 830; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Bussey v. Excelsior Co., 1 Fed. 640, 1 McCrary 161 [reversed on other grounds in 110 U. S. 131, 4 S. Ct. 38, 28 L. ed. 95]; Judson v. Bradford, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,564, 3 Ban. & A. 539, 16 Off. Gaz. 171. Fee may be regarded as fixed, although exceptions sometimes made. Asmus v. Free- man, 34 Fed. 902. Where it includes other inventions, the license-fee is no guide. Vulcanite Pavement Co. I/. American Artificial Stone Pavement Co., 36 Fed. 378; Willimantic Linen Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 27 Fed. 865; Porter Needle Co. v. National Needle Co., 22 Fed. 829; Wooster v. Simonson, 16 Fed. 680. Unless plaintiff would have made the sales, the rule as to license-fees is not applied. La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,961, 2 Ban. & A. 561. 99. Cassidy v. Hunt, 75 Fed. 1012; Brickill v. Baltimore, 60 Fed. 98, 8 C. C. A. 500; Royer v. Coupe, 29 Fed. 358; Bell v. Phillips, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,262; Campbell v. Barclay, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,353, 5 Biss. 179; Case v. Brown, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,488, 1 Biss. 382, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268; Conover v. Rapp, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,124, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 57; Grant v. , 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,701; Page v. Ferry, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,662, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298; Parker v. Bamker, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,725, 6 McLean 631; Parker v. Perkins, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,745; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441; Wilbur v. Beecher, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,634, 2 Blatchf. 132, Fish. Pat. Rep. 401 ; Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,896, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239. Equitable test as to profits may be used where no other measure of damages is avail- able. Burdell v. Denig, 92 U. S. 716, 23 L. ed. 764. Settlements with other infringers do not constitute guides and evidence thereof is in- admissible. Comely v. Marckwald, 131 U. S. 159, 9 S. Ct. 744, 33 L. ed. 117 [affirming 32 Fed. 292, 23 Blatchf. 163] ; Keyes v. Pueblo, etc., Co., 43 Fed. 478 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 507, 513, 14 S. Ct. 1148, 38 L. ed. 1083] : United Nickel Co. v. Central Pac. R. Co., 36 Fed. 186; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Matthews V. Spangenberg, 14 Fed. 350. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1023 but it is not the controlling consideration. The test is what plaintiff lost and not what defendant gained. 1 (B) Counsel Fees and Expenses. Counsel fees and expenses of the litigation cannot be included in the damages. 2 (c) Interest. Interest upon the amount due plaintiff may be included in the verdict. 3 (D) Double and Treble Damages. The verdict at law must be for the actual damages but the court may in its discretion enter judgment thereon for any sum above the verdict not exceeding three times the amount of the verdict. 4 Dam- ages may be increased to recompense plaintiff, where the circumstances of the infringement are aggravated and the litigation expensive. 5 (in) DESIGNS. Damages for the infringement of design patents may be recov- ered in the same manner as other patents, 6 except that where the infringement was wilful after notice, a minimum amount of two hundred and fifty dollars may be collected for each offense. 7 1. Royer v. Shultz Belting Co., 45 Fed. 51 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 515, 14 S. Ct. 1151, 38 L. ed. 1075] ; Cowing v. Rumsey, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,296, 8 Blatchf. 36, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 275; McComb v. Brodie, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,708, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 384, 1 Woods 153, 2 Off. Gaz. 117. Lack of actual profits made by defendant is no defense where there is real loss to plain- tiff. Campbell v. Barclay, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,353, 5 Biss. 179; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Caa. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Van Antwerp, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,600, 2 Ban. & A. 252, 9 Off. Gaz. 497 ; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. 2. Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 460, 21 L. ed. 679; Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. (U. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Blanchard's Gun- Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 255, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 184; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10.740, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 44; Stimpson V. Railroads, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,456, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 595, 1 Wall. Jr. 164; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600, 1 Gall. 429, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28. Contra, Allen r. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121; Boston Mfg. Co. v. Fiske, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,681, 2 Mason 119, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 320; Knight v. Gavit, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,884; Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,156, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 268, 3 Story 402. 3. It is generally held that interest from time suit brought may be included. May v. Fond du Lac, 27 Fed. 691 [re- versed on other grounds in 137 U. S. 395, 11 S. Ct. 98, 34 L. ed. 714]; McCormick v. Seymour, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726, 2 Blatchf. 240; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 441 ; Sickels v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Tatham v. Le Roy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,760, 2 Blatchf. 474. Where a fixed royalty is taken as the measure interest is allowed from the date when such royalties would have been due. McNeely v. Williames, 96 Fed. 978, 37 C. C. A. 641; Locomotive Safety Truck Co. v, Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Fed. 677 [reversed oa other grounds in 110 U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 220, 28 L. ed. 222]. 4. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4919 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3394]; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 81 Fed. 197; Welling v. La Bau, 35 Fed. 302 ; Bell v. U. S. Stamping Co., 32 Fed. 549; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz, 91; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718, Pet. C. C. 394, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Guyon v. Serrell, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,881, 1 Blatchf, 244, 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 151; Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,601, 1 Gall. 478, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 40. 5. National Folding Box, etc., Co. v. Rob- ertson, 125 'ed. 524; Morss v. Union Form Co., 39 Fed. 468 ; Lyon v. Donaldson, 34 Fed. 789; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121 ; Bell v. McCullough, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,256, 1 Bond 194, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 380; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 137, 5 Sawy. 608; Guyort v. Serrell, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,881, 1 Blatchf. 244, Fish. Pat. Rep. 151; Peek v. Frame, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,903, 9 Blatchf. 194, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 113; Russell v. Place, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,161, 9 Blatchf. 173, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas, 134 [affirmed in 94 U. S. 606, 24 L. ed, 214]. Without bad faith of defendant or special circumstances, damages will not be increased. Welling v. La Bau, 35 Fed. 302; Carlock r. Tappan, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,412; Schwarzel v, Holenshade, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,506, 2 Bond 29, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 116. 6. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4933 [U. S, Comp. St. (1901) p. 3399], and 2, Act Feb. 4, 1887, 24 U. S. St. at L. 387 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3398]. 7. 24 U. S. St. at L. 387 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3398]; Frank v. Geiger, 121 Fed. 126; Gimbel v. Hogg, 97 Fed. 791, 3S C. C. A. 419; Fuller V. Field, 82 Fed. 813, 27 C. C. A. 165; Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Whittall, 71 Fed. 515; Monroe v. Anderson, 58 Fed. [XIII, C, 12, a, (in)] 102 [30 Cye.] PATENTS (iv) EFFECT OF RECOVERY. The recovery of damages for past infringement does not give the inf ringer the right to continue the infringement thereafter, 8 but the recovery of full damages in satisfaction for the use of the particular machines may operate to release them from the monopoly. 9 b. Profits and Damages in Suits in Equity (i) IN GENERAL. In equity the complainant may recover the amount of the gains and profits that defendant has made from the use of the invention, 10 and in addition may have the damages sustained by him assessed. 11 398, 7 C. C. A. 272; Untermeyer v. Freund, 50 Fed. 77 {.affirmed in 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183] ; Ripley v. Elson Glass Co., 49 Fed. 927. The statute is not unconstitutional but valid. Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183. Although there were no profits two hun- dred and fifty dollars may be collected. Pirkl v. Smith, 42 Fed. 410 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 517, 14 S. Ct. 1153, 38 L. ed. 1082]. For facts showing sufficient notice see An- derson v. Saint, 46 Fed. 7GO. 8. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 S. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768 ; Root v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; Suffolk Mfg. Co. v. Hayden, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315, 18 L. ed. 76; Electric Gas-Lighting Co. v. Wollensak, 70 Fed. 790; Spaulding v. Page, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,219, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Sawy. 702 ; Friarson r. Loe, 9 Ch. D. 48, 27 Wkly/Rep. 183; Needham v. Oxlay, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 604, 2 New Rep. 388, 11 Wkly. Rep. 852. Recovery from vendor does not release the vendee from liability. Westingliouse Electric, etc., Co. v. New York Mut. L. Ins. Co., 129 Fed. 213; Van Epps v. In- ternational Paper Co., 124 Fed. 542; Tuttle v. Matthews, 28 Fed. 98; Blake v. Greenwood Cemetery 16 Fed. 676, 21 Blatchf. 222. 9. Electric Gas-Lighting Co. V. Wollensak, 70 Fed. 790; Fisher v. Consolidated Amador Mine, 25 Fed. 201 ; Steam Stone-Cutter Co. v. Sheldons, 21 Fed. 875; Allis v. Stowell, 16 Fed. 783; Steam Stone-Cutter Co. v. Shel- dons, 15 Fed. 608, 21 Blatchf. 260; Booth v. Seevers, 3 Fed. Cas. No. l,648a, 19 Off. Gaz. 1140; Gilbert, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Bussing, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,416, 1 Ban. & A. 621, 12 Blatchf. 426, 8 Off. Gaz. 144; Perrigo v. Spaulding, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,994, 2 Ban. & A. 348, 13 Blatchf. 389, 12 Off. Gaz. 352; Spalding v. Page, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,219, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Sawy. 702; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. Where license-fee is adopted as measure of damages, article is released from monopoly. Stutz r. Armstrong, 25 Fed. 147; Sickels v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Spaulding v. Page, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,219, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Sawy. 702. Contra, Emerson v. Simm, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,443, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 281, 3 Off. Gaz. 293. 10. May recover the actual profits made by the infrin^er. Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 S. Ct. 799, 36 L. ed. 609; Burdell v. [XIII, C, 12, a. (iv)] Denig, 92 U. S. 716, 23 L. ed. 764; Littlefield V. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Dean v. Mason, 20 How. ( U. S.) 198, 15 L. ed. 876; Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. (U. S.) 546, 14 L. ed. 809; Campbell V. New York, 81 Fed. 182; Kirk v. Du Bois, 46 Fed. 486 [affirmed in 158 U. S. 58, 15 S. Ct. 729, 39 L. ed. 895] ; Morss v. Union Form Co., 39 Fed. 468 ; Munson V. Ne\v York, 16 Fed. 560, 21 Blatchf. 342; Burdett v. Estey, 3 Fed. 566, 19 Blatchf. 1; Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. 338, 18 Blatchf. 92; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,961, 2 Ban. & A. 561; Sickels v. Borden, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,832, 3 Blatchf. 535; Tilghman v. Werks, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,046, 1 Bond 511, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 229; Vaughan v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,898, 2 Ban. & A. 537, 1 Flipp. 621, 11 Off. Gaz. 789; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc. Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,464, 1 Ban. & A. 485. The fact that the profits are due princi- pally to business judgment and skill of de- fendant does not affect the rule. Lawther v . Hamilton, 64 Fed. 221. The fact that defendant could have made equal profits on similar unpatented articles does not limit - the recovery. Warren v. Keep, 155 U. S. 265, 15 S. Ct. 83, 39 L. ed. 144; Am Ende v. Seabury, 43 Fed. 672; Simpson v. Davis, 22 Fed. 444, 22 Blatchf. 113; Bur- dett v. Estey, 3 Fed. 566, 19 Blatchf. 1. Although the patentee has himself made no use of his patent, he is entitled to profits. Crosby Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co., 141 U. S. 441, 12 S. Ct. 49, 35 L. ed. 809. Profits occurring after complainant sells his patent pending suit cannot be recovered. Goss Printing Press Co. v. Scott, 134 Fed. 880. Manufacturer's profits/ A trader is not liable for manufacturer's profits. Kissinger- , Ison Co. v. Bradford Belting Co., 123 Fed. 91, 59 C. C. A. 221. That user may be sued for profits after col- lecting damages from manufacturer see U. S. Printing C'o. v. American Playing-Card Co., 70 Fed. 50. 11. Damages in addition to profits recov- erable see U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921; Williams v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 2 Fed. 702, 18 Blatchf. 181; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91. Profits and damages distinct. On an ac- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1025 (n) ESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND DAMAGES. It must be clearly shown what saving or advantage defendant has actually derived from the infringement, 12 and the burden is on the complainant to show this. Where plaintiff fails to show the amount of profits due to the use of his invention, nominal damages only will be allowed. 13 Defendant is not responsible for all profits of the business but only such counting for infringement of a patent under U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4921, defendant's profits and complainant's damages are dis- tinct from and independent of each other and are governed by different principles, and one cannot be said to be the measure of the other, nor the allowance of one to preclude recovery of the other. Beach v. Hatch, 153 Fed. 763. It is proper for the master to report as to each separately. Mast v. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed. 45, 83 C. C. A. 157. Where profits are insufficient to recompense plaintiff damages will be allowed. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802 ; U. S. Mitis Co. t;. Carnegie Steel Co., 89 Fed. 206 [affirmed in 90 Fed. 829, 33 C. C. A. 387] ; Williinantic Thread Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 27 Fed. 865 ; Andrews t?. Creegan, 7 Fed. 477, 19 Blatchf. 113; Burdett v. Estey, 3 Fed. 566, 19 Blatchf. 1; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,795, 3 Ban. & A. 577, 15 Off. Gaz. 965 ; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,950, 2 Ban. & A. 152, 13 Blatchf. 109, 11 Off. Gaz. 501. Where profits are sufficient to recom- pense plaintiff no damages are allowed. Ham- macher t7. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796; Ford v. Kurtz, 12 Fed. 789, 11 Biss. 324. That damages in addition to profits were first allowed by the act of 1870 see Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Willimantic Thread Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 27 Fed. 865; Williams v. Leonard, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,726, 13 Blatchf. 282, 43 Conn. 569. English practice. Equity cannot award both damages and profits but the complainant must elect. De Vitre v. Betts, L. R. 6 H. L. 319, 42 L. J. Ch. 841, 21 Wkly. Rep. 705; Neilson v. Betts, L. R. 5 H. L. 1, 40 L. J. Ch. 317, 19 Wkly. Rep. 1121; Holland v. Fox, 2 C. L. R. 1576, 3 E. & B. 977, 1 Jur. N. S. 13, 23 L. J. Q. B. 357, 2 Wkly. Rep. 558, 77 E. C. L. 977; Needham v. Oxley, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 604, 2 New Rep. 388, 11 Wkly. Rep. 852. May recover profits from manufacturer and damages from infringer. Penn t/. Bibby, L. R. 3 Eq. 308, 36 L. J. Ch. 277, 15 Wkly. Rep. 192. Canadian practice.- Plaintiff cannot have damages and profits from the same infringer but may have profits from manufacturer and damages from user. Toronto Auer Light Co. v. Colling, 31 Ont. 18. 12. Only actual profits are recoverable, not what it was possible for defendant to make. Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. 17. Western Siemens-Lungren Co., 152 U. S. 200, 14 S. Ct. 523, 38 L. ed. 411; Bur- dell v. Denig, 92 U. S. 716, 23 L. ed. 764; Dean v. Mason, 20 How. (U. S.) 198, 15 [65] L. ed. 876; Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 140 Fed. 545, 72 C. C. A. 61; Robbins v. Illinois Watch Co., 78 Fed. 124; Munson v. New York, 16 Fed. 560, 21 Blatchf. 342; Burdett v. Estey, 3 Fed. 566, 19 Blatchf. 1. License-fees. Plaintiff is entitled to actual profits without regard to his fixed license- fees. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 S. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 664; Elizabeth v. Ameri- can Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000 ; Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 920; Fisk v. Mahler, 54 Fed. 528; Knox v. Great Western Quicksilver Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,907, 4 Ban. & A. 25, 7 Reporter 325, 6 Sawy. 430, 14 Off. Gaz. 897; Wooster v. Taylor, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,041, 3 Ban. & A. 241, 14 Blatchf. 403. In case of doubt license-fees followed. Emigh v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 6 Fed. 283, 4 Hughes 271. That profits must be direct and not indirect see Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 131 Fed. 89; Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. American Buckle, etc., Co., 62 Fed. 278; Piper t?. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 240, Holmes 196, 3 Off. Gaz. 97 ; Wetherill t?. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 Fed, Cas. No. 17,464, 1 Ban. & A. 485. Profits derived from advertisers in the in- fringing hotel register may- be recovered. Hawes v. Gage, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,237, 5 Off. Gaz. 494. Profits of other manufacturers or cost to them are not relevant but actual profits of defendant must be shown. Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139, 14 S. Ct. 295, 38 L. ed. 103 [reversing 41 Fed. 595] ; Rob- bins v. Illinois Watch Co., 81 Fed. 957, 27 C. C. A. 21; Child t7. Boston, etc., Iron Works, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,674; Troy Iron, etc., Fac- tory v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,196, 6 Blatchf. 328, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 497. Proof of complainant's profits admitted un- der special circumstances see Rose v. Hirsh, 94 Fed. 177, 36 C. C. A. 132, 51 L. R. A. 801. Only profits actually made by defendant are recoverable. El wood v. Christy, 18 C. B. N. S. 494, 34 L. J. C. P. 130, 13 Wkly. Rep. 498, 114 E. C. L. 494; Walton v. Lavater, 8 C. B. N. S. 162, 6 Jur. N. S. 1251, 29 L. J. C. P. 275, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 272, 98 E. C. L. 162. Defendant must disclose cost before and after using invention. Siddell v. Vickers, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 233. Price of infringing articles may be recovered. Holland v. Fox, 23 L. J. Q.' B. 211, 1 L. & M. 221, 2 Wkly. Rep. 166. 13. Rude t?. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L. ed. 888; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 S. Ct. 945, 29 L. ed. 177; Black v. Thome, 111 U. S. 122, 4 S. Ct. 326, 28 L. ed. 372; Canda 17. Michi- [XIII, C, 12, b, (II)] 1026 [30 Cye.] PATENTS as are due to the patented improvement, 14 and the burden is on the complainant to separate and apportion the profits by reliable and tangible proofs. 15 The profits gan Malleable Iron Co., 152 Fed. 178, 81 C. C. A. 420; Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 127 Fed. 363; Paxton v. Brinton, 126 Fed. 541; Hohorst v. Hamburg- American Packet Co., 91 Fed. 655, 34 C. C. A. 39 [af- firming 84 Fed. 354] ; Rose v. Hirsh, 91 Fed. 149; Hohorst v. Hamburg- American Packet Co., 84 Fed. 354; Keep v. Fuller, 42 Fed/ 896; Fischer v. Hayes, 39 Fed. 613; Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 31 Fed. 742; Roemer v. Simon, 31 Fed. 41, 24 Blatchf. 396; Tuttle v. Gaylord, 28 Fed. 97; Moffitt v. Cavanagh, 27 Fed. 511; Blake v. Green- wood Cemetery, 16 Fed. 676, 21 Blatchf. 222; Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. 755, 10 Biss. 445 ; Kirby v. Armstrong, 5 Fed. 801, 10 Biss. 135; Fisk v. West Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,830a, 19 Off. Gaz. 545; Garretson f. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,249, 17 Blatchf. 256 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 120, 4 S. Ct. 291, 28 L. ed. 371] ; Gould's Mfg. Co. v. Cowing, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,643, 3 Ban. & A. 75, 14 Blatchf. 315, 12 Off. Gaz. 942 [reversed on other grounds in 105 U. S. 253, 26 L. ed. 987] ; Schillinger v. Gunther, 21 Fed. Cas. Xo. 12,457, 3 Ban. & A. 491, 15 Blatchf. 303, 14 Off. Gaz. 713. In case of wilful infringement all doubts as to amount of profits are resolved against the infringer. Regina Music Box Co. v. Otto, 114 Fed. 505. 14. Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Il- luminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co., 152 U. S. 200, 14 S. Ct. 523, 38 L. ed. 411; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Turrill, 94 U. S. 695, 24 L. ed. 238; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620, 20 L. ed. 860; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. 476; McMurray v. Emerson, 36 Fed. 901; Loco- motive Safety Truck Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Fed. 677; Knox v. Great Western Quicksilver Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,907, 4 Ban. & A. 25, 7 Reporter 325, 6 Sawy. 430, 14 Off. Gaz. 897; Serrell v. Collins, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,672, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 289; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,464, 1 Ban. & A. 485. Where the patented improvement is only a part of the machine, entire profits on the machine are not recoverable. Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 140 Fed. 545, 72 C. C. A. 61 ; Lattimore v. Hardsocg Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 986, 58 C. C. A. 287; Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 115 Fed. 645; Brickill v. New York, 112 Fed. 65, 50 C. C. A. 1; Fay v. Allen, 30 Fed. 446; Reed v. Law- rence, 29 Fed. 915; Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. 755, 10 Biss. 445; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,795, 3 Ban. & A. 577, 15 Off. Gaz. 965; Garretson v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,248, 3 Ban. & A. 352, 15 Blatchf. 70, 14 Off. Gaz. 485 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 120, 4 S. Ct. 291, 28 L. ed. 371]; Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,672, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 290, Holmes 88, 1 Off. Gaz. 609; Ingels v. Mast, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,034, 2 Ban. & A. 24, 1 Flipp. 424, 7 Off. Gaz. 836; [XIII, C. 12, b, (n)] Webster i\ New Brunswick Carpet Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,338, 2 Ban. & A. 67, 9 Off. Gaz. 203; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,464, 1 Ban. & A. 485. And see Canda v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co., 152 Fed. 178, 81 C. C. A. 420. Where sales of articles are due solely to the patented improvement, the entire profits may be recovered. Warren v. Keep, 155 U. S. 265, 15 S. Ct. 83, 39 L. ed. 144; Crosby Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co., 141 U. S. 441, 12 S. Ct. 49, 35 L. ed. 809 [affirming 44 Fed. 66] ; Hurlbut V. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456, 9 S. Ct. 584, 32 L. ed. 1011; Elizabeth v. American Nichol- son Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Force v. Sawyer-Boss Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 884; Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 131 Fed. 607 [reversed on other grounds in 140 Fed. 545, 72 C. C. A. 61] ; Penfield v. Potts, 126 Fed. 475, 61 C. C. A. 371; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 123 Fed. 897; Coddington v. Propfe, 112 Fed. 1016; Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 101 Fed. 126, 41 C. C. A. 250; Heaton Button- Fastener Co. v. Macdonald, 57 Fed. 648; Hoke Engraving Plate Co. v. Schraubstadter, 53 Fed. 817; Tatum v. Gregory, 51 Fed. 446; Putnam V. Lomax, 9 Fed. 448, 10 Biss. 546; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330 [reversed on other grounds in 1 Wall. 155, 17 L. ed. 662]; Ruggles v. Eddy, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,116, 2 Ban. & A. 627, 12 Off. Gaz. 716; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,594, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207 [reversed on other grounds in 14 Wall. 620, 20 L. ed. 860]. Where it is shown that profits are due to the patented invention the burden is on de- fendant to show that part is due to other things. Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Campbell v. New York, 81 Fed. 182; Tuttle v. Claflin, 76 Fed. 227, 22 C. C. A. 138; Morss v. Union Form Co., 39 Fed. 468 ; Fitch v. Bragg, 16 Fed. 243, 21 Blatchf. 302; American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Eliza- beth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 309, 1 Ban. & A. 439, 6 Off. Gaz. 764 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000] ; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512. 15. Complainant must show how much of the profits is due to the patented part of the infringing machine. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120, 4 S. Ct. 291, 28 L. ed. 371; Robert- son v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245; Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 140 Fed. 545, 72 C. C. A. 61; Brinton v. Paxton, 134 Fed. 78, 67 C. C. A. 204; Kansas City Hay Press Co. t?. Devol, 127 Fed. 363; Crane Co. v. Baker, 125 Fed. 1, 60 C. C. A. 138 [reversed on other grounds in 138 Fed. 60, 70 C. C. A. 486]; Elgin Wind Power, etc., Co. v. Nichols, 105 Fed. 780, 45 C. C. A. 49; Robbins v. Illinois Watch Co., 81 Fed. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1027 which resulted from the infringement consist of the saving or advantage in the use of the patented improvement as compared with other old substitutes. 16 In determining profits all legitimate expenses of manufacture and sale are to be deducted from the selling price, 17 but not taxes, insurance, and interest upon 957, 27 C. C. A. 21 [affirming 78 Fed. 124] ; Williames v. McNeely, 77 Fed. 894; Tuttle v. Claflin, 62 Fed. 453 {reversed on other grounds in 76 Fed. 227, 22 C. C. A. 138]; Heaton Button-Fastener Co. v. Macdonald, 57 Fed. 648; Mosher v. Joyce, 45 Fed. 205 [af- firmed in 51 Fed. 441, 2 C. C. A. 322]; Roeiner v. Simon, 31 Fed. 41, 24 Blatchf. 396; Fay v. Allen, 30 Fed. 446; Willimantic Thread Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 27 Fed. 865 ; Bostock v. Goodrich, 25 Fed. 819; Kirby v. Armstrong, 5 Fed. 801, 10 Biss. 135 ; Black V. Munson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,463, 2 Ban. & A. 623, 14 Blatchf. 265 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 122, 4 S. Ct. 326, 28 L. ed. 372] ; Gould's Mfg. Co. v. Cowing, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,642, 1 Ban. & A. 375, 12 Blatchf. 243, 8 Off. Gaz. 277; Ingersoil v. Musgrove, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,040, 3 Ban. & A. 304, 14 Blatchf. 541, 13 Off. Gaz. 966; Star Salt Caster Co. v. Cross- man, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,320, 4 Ban. & A. 566. 16. New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving, etc., Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 411, 50 N. Y. Suppl. 1093 [reversed on other grounds in 180 N. Y. 280, 73 N. E. 48] ; McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 141 U. S. 459, 12 S. Ct. 40, 35 L. ed. 817 [affirming 5 Fed. 367] ; Dotem v. Boston, 138 Fed. 406, 70 C. C. A. 308; Rose v. Hirsh, 91 Fed. 149; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 43 Fed. 673; Coupe v. Weatherhead, 37 Fed. 16; Vulcanite Paving Co. v. American Artificial Stone Pavement Co., 36 Fed. 378 ; Tomkinson v. Willets Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. 536*; Shannon V. Bruner, 33 Fed. 871; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 20 Fed. 912; Maier v. Brown, 17 Fed. 736; Faulks v. Kamp, 10 Fed. 675; Knox 1?. Great Western Quicksilver Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,907, 4 Ban. & A. 25, 7 Reporter 325, 6 Sawy. 430, 14 Off. Gaz. 897; Mulford v. Pearce, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,908, 2 Ban. & A. 542, 14 Blatchf. 141, 11 Off. Gaz. 741 [reversed on other grounds in 102 U. S. 112, 26 L. ed. 93] ; Sargent v. Yale Lock Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,367, 4 Ban. & A. 579, 17 Blatchf. 249, 17 Off. Gaz. 106; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,041, 9 Blatchf. 1, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 599; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,272, 5 Biss. 344 [reversed in part in 94 U. S. 695, 24 L. ed. 238]. An improvement upon the patented ma- chine by the infringer does not relieve him from liability but profits may be apportioned. Tuttle v. Claflin, 76 Fed. 227, 22 C. C. A. 138; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. Compare Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,672, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 290, Holmes 88, 1 Off. Gaz. 609. 17. Actual cost of making and selling articles should be deducted in determining profits, and this includes wages, rent, adver- tising, etc. Goulds Mfg. Co. v. Cowing, 105* U. S. 253, 26 L. ed. 987 ; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 123 Fed. 897; Zane v. Peck, 13 Fed. 475; American Saw Co. v. Emerson, 8 Fed. 806; La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,961, 2 Ban. & A. 561; Steam Stone- cutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 24 Fed*- Cas. No. 14,196, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 497, 6- Blatchf. 328. Commissions to agents are deducted but must be shown by defendant. Kissinger-Ison Co. v. Bradford Belting Co., 123 Fed. 91, 59 C. C. A. 221. Apportionment of running expenses. Run- ning expenses will be apportioned between infringing article and other business. Kinner v. Shepard, 118 Fed. 48; Hitchcock v. Tre- maine, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,539, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 310, 9 Blatchf. 385 [affirmed in 23 Wall. 518, 23 L. ed. 97]. Allowance made and deducted for use of shop and tools see Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24; Troy Iron, etc., Factory v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,196, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 497, 6 Blatchf. 328. Loss on entire business or upon particular articles will not be deducted from profits of infringing article. Force v. Sawyer-Boss Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 884; Conover v. Mers, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,122, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 506, 11 Blatchf. 197 ; Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,672, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 290, Holmes 88, 1 Off. Gaz. 609; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. Manufacturers' profits. No deduction is made for ordinary " manufacturers' profits." Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; National Folding- Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 86 Fed. 917, 30 C. C. A. 487. Contra, Hammacher v. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796. Cost of experiments will be deducted. Crosby Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co., 141 U. S. 441, 12 S. Ct. 49, 35 L. ed. 809 [affirming 44 Fed. 66]. Infringement of other patents. Where a part of a machine made and sold by de- fendant is found to infringe complainant's patent, the court will not undertake to de- termine, in reduction of damages, the col- lateral question whether or not such part also infringes another patent, the validity and scope of which are not directly put in issue. Brinton v. Paxton, 134 Fed. 78, 67 C. C. A. 204. Royalty under other patents will be de- ducted. La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,961, 2 Ban. & A. 561. [XIII, C, 12, b, (II)] 1028 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS money invested in the manufacturing plant, 13 nor compensation for personal serv- ices. 19 So it has been held that only losses occurring concurrently with the mak- ing of profits and directly resulting from the particular transactions on which the profits are allowed may be considered in diminution of profits. 20 It has been held that interest on profits should not be allowed except under special circumstances. 21 It is very generally held that if allowed, interest commences to run from the date of the master's report. 22 Damages are estimated as in actions at law, 23 18. Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553 [affirming 43 Fed. 672] ; Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566; Piaget Novelty Co. v. Headley, 123 Fed. 897; Na- tional Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Dayton Paper- Novelty Co., 95 Fed. 991; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13.335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. Only where interest is actually paid will it be allowed. Herring v. Gage, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,422, 3 Ban. & A. 396, 15 Blatchf. 124. 19. Nothing is to be deducted from profits for the personal services or salary of defend- ant or of officers of the company. Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. ed. 553 [affirming 43 Fed. 672] ; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 127 Fed. 363; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 240, Holmes 196, 3 Off. Gaz. 97; Williams v. Leonard, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,726, 9 Blatchf. 476, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 381. Contra, National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Dayton Paper-Nov- elty Co., 95 Fed. 991; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. 20. Canda v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co., 152 Fed. 178, 81 C. C. A. 420. 21. Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 26 L. ed. 54; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577 ; Graham v. Piano Mfg. Co., 35 Fed. 597; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,795, 3 Ban. & A. 577, 15 Off. Gaz. 965; Holbrook v. Small, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,596, 3 Ban. & A. 625, 17 Off. Gaz. 55. 22. Crosby Steam Gage, etc., Co. v. Con- solidated Safety Valve Co., 141 U. S. 441, 12 S. Ct. 49, 35 L. ed. 809 [affirming 44 Fed. 66] ; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 S. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 664; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Tun-ill, 110 U. S. 301, 4 S. Ct. 5, 28 L. ed. 154 ; Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 133 Fed. 936; Campbell v. New York, 105 Fed. 631; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Dayton Paper-Novelty Co., 97 Fed. 331 ; Tur- rill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 20 Fed. 912. Compare American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 309, 1 Ban. & A. 439, 6 Off. Gaz. 764 (interest allowed from final decree) ; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Wind- sor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13.336, 5 Ban. & A. 335, 18 Blatchf. 47 (in- terest allowed from interlocutory decree) ; Webster t>. New Brunswick Carpet Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,338, 2 Ban. & A. 67, 9 Off. Gaz. 203 (interest allowed from final decree). Filing bill. Interest is not allowed from [XIII, C, 12, b. (II)] the filing of the bill. National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 81 Fed. 197. 23. The loss to plaintiff by the infringe- ment constitutes the damages to be recovered. See supra, XIII, C, 12, a, (n). Profits which plaintiff would have made on infringing sales are recoverable. Westing- house v. New York Air Brake Co., 131 Fed. 607 [reversed on other grounds in 140 Fed. 545]; Creamer v. Bowers, 35 Fed. 206; Well- ing v. La Bau, 34 Fed. 40; Blake v. Green- wood Cemetery, 16 Fed. 676, 21 Blatchf. 222; Zane v. Peck, 13 Fed. 475. Showing sales except for infringement. To recover as damages any part of the profits he would have made on the infringing sales, plaintiff must show that he would have made the sales except for the infringer. Dobson v. Dorman, 118 U. S. 10, 6 S. Ct. 946, 30 L. ed. 63 ; Jennings, v. Rogers Silver-Plate Co., 105 Fed. 967; Tatum v. Gregory, 51 Fed. 446; Covert v. Sargent, 38 Fed. 237 [reversed on other grounds in 152 U. S. 516, 14 S. Ct. 676, 38 L. ed. 536] ; Bell v. U. S. Stamping Co., 32 Fed. 549 ; Comely v. Marck- wald, 32 Fed. 292, 23 Blatchf. 163 [affirmed in 131 U. S. 159, 9 S. Ct. 744, 33 L. ed. 117] ; McSherry Mfg. Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 160 Fed. 948; Hall v. Stern, 20 Fed. 788; Buerk v. Imhaeuser 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,107, 2 Ban. & A. 452, 14 Blatchf. 19, 10 Off. Gaz. 907; Inger- soll v. Musgrove, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,040, 3 Ban. & A. 304, 14 Blatchf. 541, 13 Off. Gaz. 966; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quimby, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,240a, 5 Ban. & A. 275, 18 Off. Gaz. 571. Counsel fees are not recoverable. Bancroft v. Acton, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 833, 7 Blatchf. 505. Damages after suit may be recovered, al- though none were proved before. Canton Steel Roofing Co. v. Kanneberg, 51 Fed. 599. Entire profits on infringing article are re- coverable, providing the evidence is sufficient to prove that the marketable value of the article is due solely to the patented feature. Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co., 140 Fed. 545, 72 C. C. A. 61. Reduction in price due to the infringement is an item to be considered in estimating damages (Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 536, 6 S. Ct. 934, 29 L. ed. 954 [affirm- ing 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,366, 4 Ban. & A. 574, 17 Blatchf. 244, 17 Off. Gaz. 105] ; Kinner v. Shepard, 107 Fed. 952; Am Ende v. Seabury, 43 Fed. 672; Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. 656; Fitch v. Bragg, 16 Fed. 243, 21 Blatchf. 302) ; but must be clearly shown to be due to the infringement (Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697, 10 S. Ct 378, 33 L. ed. 787 [reversing 33 Fed. 279, 13 Sawy. 17]; Comely v. Marck- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1029 and it has been held that the court may allow complainant double or treble damages. 24 13. PLEADINGS 25 a. In Actions at Law (i) IN GENERAL. The pleadings in actions at law must conform to the rules of the courts of the state where brought, 26 except as modified by statute, 27 providing the general issue may be pleaded, and that on giving notice certain special matters of defense may be proved. 28 Oyer of the patent cannot be demanded. 29 (n) DECLARATION OR COMPLAINT. The declaration must embody all that is essential to enable plaintiff to give evidence of his right and of its violation by defendant and afford defendant the opportunity to interpose every defense allowed him by law, 30 but critical and over-nice objections to matters of form will not be sustained. 31 (in) PLEA OR ANSWER (A) In General. By virtue of express statutory provision, 32 in any action for infringement, defendant may plead the general issue, and having given thirty days' notice in writing may prove any one or more of several special defenses therein enumerated. 83 He may show without notice the wald, 131 U. S. 159, 9 S. Ct. 744, 33 L. ed. 117). 24. Equity may allow increased or exem- plary damages in an aggravated case. Fox ?;. Knickerbocker Engraving Co., 158 Fed. 422; National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Elsas, 86 Fed. 917, 30 C. C. A. 487 [affirming 81 Fed. 197]; Stutz v. Armstrong, 25 Fed. 147; Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Mfg. Co., 24 Fed. 642 ; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Van Ant- werp, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,600, 2 Ban. & A. 252, 9 Off. Gaz. 497; Parker v. Corbin, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,731, 4 McLean 462, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 736. See also supra, XIII, C, 12, a, (II), (D). Under the act of 1836, equity could not award exemplarv damages. Livingston v. Jones, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,414, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207, 3 Wall. Jr. 330; Motte v. Bennett, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,884, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 642; Sanders v. Logan, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,295, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 167, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 241. Profits cannot be increased in equity but only damages such as might have been al- lowed at law. Covert v. Sargent, 42 Fed. 298; Campbell v. James, 5 Fed. 806; Hoi- brook v. Small, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,596, 3 Ban. & A. 625 3 17 Off. Gaz. 55. 25. See, generally, PLEADING. 26. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 914 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 684]; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 34 Fed. 744; Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. 689, 9 Sawy. 435. 27. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 28. Myers v. Sternheim, 97 Fed. 625, 38 C. C. A. 345; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 34 Fed. 744. See also Myers v. Cunningham, 14 Fed. 346. See infra, XIII, C, 13, a, (m), (B). 29. Singer v. Wilson, 22 Fed. * Cas. No. 12,901 ; Smith v. Ely, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,043, Fish. Pat. Rep. 339, 5 McLean 76. Contra, Cutting v. Myers, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,520, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 94, 4 Wash. 220. Reference to patent makes it part of com- plaint. Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737 ; Wilder v. McCormick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,650, 2 Blatchf. 31, Fish. Pat. Rep. 128. 30. Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,719, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 140, Pet. C. C. 476; Wilder v. McCormick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,650, 1 Blatchf. 597, Fish. Pat. Rep. 128. See infra, XIII, C, 13, b, (i). The preliminary steps leading to grant of patent need not be specifically alleged. Cut- ting v. Myers, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,520, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 159, 4 Wash. 220; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,854; Wilder v. McCormick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,650, 2 Blatchf. 31, Fish. Pat. Rep. 128. Facts as to damage and not evidence must be alleged, so that there may be an issue. Rude v. Wescott, 130 U. S. 152, 9 S. Ct. 463, 32 L. ed. 888; Ewart Mfg. Co. v. Baldwin Cycle-Chain Co., 91 Fed. 262. Marking goods. It must be alleged that plaintiff marked his goods under the patent with the word "patented." Streat v. Finch, 154 Fed. 378 ; Sprague v. Bramhall-Deane Co., 133 Fed. 738. Where the patent contains numerous claims, the ones relied on must be specified. Russell v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 97 Fed. 634. Infringement within six years need not be alleged. Defendant may show that the in- fringement was not within six years under the general issue. Peters v. Hanger, 134 Fed. 586, 67 C. C. A. 386. The question of the validity of a patent on its face may be raised by demurrer in an action at law for its infringement. Thomas v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 149 Fed. 753, 79 C. C. A. 89. 31. May v. Mercer County, 30 Fed. 246; Gray v. James, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,719, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 140, Pet. C. C. 476; Parker v. Haworth, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,738, 4 Mc- Lean 370, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 725; Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,854; Wilder v. McCormick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,650, 1 Blatchf. 31. Fish. Pat. Rep. 128. 32. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 33. Bates ?;. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. (U. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Henry v. U. S., 22 Ct. Cl. 75. Want of patentability need not be specially pleaded. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 [XIII, C, 13, a, (in), (A)] 1030 [30 Cye.] PATENTS prior state of the art, 34 or that the patent is void on its face. 85 As the statute mentioned is permissive merely it does not prevent special pleas under ordinary rules. 36 And, where defenses are specially pleaded which might be shown under the general issues, no notice is necessary. 87 However, if notice of special matter of defense is given, a plea covering the same matter cannot be filed. 88 The question of fraud can be raised only by distinct and special allegations in the plea or answer. 39 (B) Notice of Special Matter of Defense. The special matters of defense covered by statute 40 cannot be proved unless notice is given in accordance with the terms of the statute, 41 or unless it is waived. 42 The notice must be definite and certain as to name, place, and subject-matter, 43 and must be given thirty U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 991; May v. Juneau County, 137 U. S. 408, 11 8. Ct. 102, 34 L. ed. 729; Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 S. Ct. 1275, 32 L. ed. 207; Zane v. Soffe, 110 U. S. 200, 3 S. Ct. 562, 28 L. ed. 119. Any special matter showing that the pat- ent is invalid may be proved. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 33 L. ed. 200; Baldwin v. Kresl, 76 Fed. 823, 22 C. C. A. 593 ; Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co., 63 Fed. 609, 11 C. C. A. 353; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68, Pet. C. C. 322; Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. C. C. 9. Statute of limitations. Under general is- sue may show infringement more than six years before suit. Peters v. Hanger, 134 Fed. 586, 67 C. C. A. 386 [reversing^ 127 Fed. 820, 62 C. C. A. 498]. That proofs are confined to matter in notice see Lyon v. Donaldson, 34 Fed. 789. Separate defenses. Where several patents sued on may give separate defense for each. Kelleher v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673. For insufficient pleas see Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Brickill v. Hartford, 57 Fed. 216; Kelle- her v. Darling, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653, 3 Ban. & A. 438, 4 Cliff. 424, 14 Off. Gaz. 673 ; Root v. Ball, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,035, 4 Mc- Lean 177, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 513; Wheeler v. McConnick, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,498, 8 Blatchf. 267, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 433. For pleas sustained as sufficient see Na- tional Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. 355; Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294. Under the Eng- lish practice monopoly cannot be set up as a defense to the general issue (Gillett v. Wilby, 9 C. & P. 334, 38 E. C. L. 201), nor fraudulent evasion of patent (Stead v. An- derson, 4 C. B. 806, 11 Jur. 877, 16 L. J. C. P. 250, 56 E. C. L. 806). 34. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427, 17 L. ed. 168; Parsons v. Seelye, 100 Fed. 452, 40 C. C. A. 484 ; Overweight Counter- balance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order Red Men's Hall Assoc., 94 Fed. 155, 36 C. C. A. 125; Kennedy v. Solar Refining Co., 69 Fed. 715; Stevenson v. Magowan, 31 Fed. 824; La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,960, 1 Ban. & A. 428, 6 Off. Gaz. 724. [XIII, C, 13, a, (m), (A)] 35. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. 9. 36. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376. 37. Brickill v. Hartford, 57 Fed. 216; Cot- tier v. Stimson, 20 Fed. 906 ; Cottier v. Stim- son, 18 Fed. 689, 9 Sawy. 435; Day v. New England Car-Spring Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,687, 3 Blatchf. 179; Root v. Ball, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,035, 4 McLean 177, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 513. 38. Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,116, 1 Bond 259, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Read v. Miller, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,610, 2 Biss. 12, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 310. 39. Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Clark v. Scott, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,833, 9 Blatchf. 301, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 245, 2 Off. Gaz. 4; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,029, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 553; Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380. In England he may plead patent fraudu- lently obtained. Bedells v. Massey, 8 Jur. 808, 13 L. J. C. P. 173, 7 M. & G. 630, 8 Scott N. R. 337, 49 E. C. L. 630. 40. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 41. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Arrott v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 389; Kiesele v. Haas, 32 Fed. 794; Bragg v. Stockton, 27 Fed. 509; Coleman v. Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984 ; Dixon v. Moyer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324, 4 Wash. 68; Roberts v. Buck, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,897, Holmes 224, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 325, 3 Off. Gaz. 268. Patents and publications not admitted with- out notice. Earl v. Dexter, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,242, 1 Ban. & A. 400, Holmes 412, 6 Off. Gaz. 729 ; Odiorne v. Denney, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,431, 3 Ban. & A. 287, 13 Off. Gaz. 965, 1 N. J. L. J. 183. 42. Crouch v. Speer, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438, 1 Ban. & A. 145, 6 Off. Gaz. 187; Roemer v. Simon, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,997, 1 Ban. & A. 138, 5 Off. Gaz. 555 [affirmed in 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 384]. 43. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Wise v. Allis, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 737, 19 L. ed. 784; Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. (U. S.) PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 1031 days before trial. 44 It may be given in the answer 45 and need not be under oath. 43 b. In Suits in Equity 47 (i) BILL. The bill or complaint should clearly identify the invention claimed in the patent, 48 should allege ownership thereof, 49 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. (U. S.) 218, 14 L. ed. 394; Tatum v. Eby, 60 Fed. 408; Orr v. Merrill, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,591, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331, 1 Woodb. & M. 376. Names and residences of prior users must be given, but not necessarily the names of witnesses by whom allegation is to be estab- lished. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; Allis v. Buckstaff, 13 Fed. 879; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; Lock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,438; Many v. Jagger, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,055, 1 Blatchf. 372, Fish. Pat. Rep. 222; Wilton v. Railroads, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,857, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Wall. Jr. 192. Use by others in addition to those men- tioned in the notice may be proved. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Evans v. Kremer, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,565, Pet. C. C. 215, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 66; Treadwell v. Bladen, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,154, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 531, 4 Wash. 703. Time of use need not be specified. Phillips v. Page, 24 How. (U. S.) 164, 16 L. ed. 639. Place of use must be stated specifically and not merely the county or city. Schenck v. Diamond Match Co., 77 Fed. 208, 23 C. C. A. 122 [affirming 71 Fed. 521] ; Hays v. Sulsor, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271, 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532; Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,116, 1 Bond 259, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465. Defense. Each defense must be specified in notice. Meyers v. Busby, 32 Fed. 670, 13 Sawy. 33. Notices held sufficient see Anderson v. Mil- ler, 129 U. S. 70, 9 S. Ct. 224, 32 L. ed. 635 ; Saunders v. Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157; American Hide, etc., Splitting, etc., Mach. Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 302, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284, Holmes 503; Smith v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,048, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543, 2 Off. Gaz. 175, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 397. 44. Brunswick v. Holzalb, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,057; Westlake v. Cartter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,451, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 519, 4 Off. Gaz. 636. 45. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Arrott v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 389; Smith V. Frazer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,048, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543, 2 Off. Gaz. 175, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 397. Plea stricken out is not notice. Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, 1 Blatchf. 445, Fish. Pat. Rep. 268 [affirmed in 14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394]. 46. Campbell v. New York, 45 Fed. 243. 47. Form and requisites of bill have been settled by numerous decisions and the prac- tice can only be changed by an amendment of the equity rules, or of the rules of the cir- cuit courts. American Graphophone Co. v. National Phonograph Co., 127 Fed. 349. 43. Wise v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 33 Fed. 277; Noe v. Prentice, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,284; Peterson v. Wooden, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,038, 3 McLean 248, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 116. Identification held insufficient. Title of in- vention and date and number of patent not sufficient identification. Welsbach Light Co. v. Rex Incandescent Light Co., 87 Fed. 477; Electrolibration Co. v. Jackson, 52 Fed. 773; Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 142; Post v. T. C. Richards Hardware Co., 25 Fed. 905. Identification held sufficient. General ref- erence to the invention with profert of the patent is sufficient identification and places patent before the court. Edison v. American Mutoscope, etc., Co., 127 Fed. 361; Fowler v. New York, 121 Fed. 747, 58 C. C. A. 113 [af- firming 110 Fed. 749]; Chinnock v. Paterson, etc., Tel. Co., 110 Fed. 199 [decree reversed on other grounds in 112 Fed. 531, 50 C. C. A. 384] : Hea ton-Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. v. Schlochtermeyer, 72 Fed. 520, 18 C. C. A. 674 [affirming 69 Fed. 592] ; Germain v. Wil- gus, 67 Fed. 597, 14 C. C. A. 561 ; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Snow, 67 Fed. 235; U. S. Credit System Co. v. American Credit Indemnity Co., 53 Fed. 818; Dickerson v. Greene, 53 Fed. 247; International Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. 618; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803 ; Bogart V. Hinds, 25 Fed. 484 ; McMillin v. St. Louis, etc., Valley Transp. Co., 18 Fed. 260, 5 Mc- Crary 561; Pitts v. Whitman, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,196, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189, 2 Story 609. It is unnecessary to specify particular claims of the patent 'except under unusual circumstances. Morton Trust Co. V. Ameri- can Car, etc., Co., 129 Fed. 916, 64 C. C. A. 367; Johnson v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 106 Fed. 319. But see Eastwood v. Cutler- Hammer Mfg. Co., 148 Fed. 718. Reference to patent for full disclosure is sufficient. Graham v. Earl, 92 Fed. 155, 34 C. C. A. 267. Profert of patent does not make it proof of the allegations contained therein as to the prior art. Indurated Fibre Industries Co. v. Grace, 52 Fed. 124. 49. Must show ownership at time of suit and not merely ownership at some time. Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 Fed. 39; Ameri- can Graphophone Co. v. National Phonograph Co., 127 Fed. 349; Lettelier v. Mann, 79 Fed. 81; De Beaumont v. Williames, 71 Fed. 812; Krick v. Jansen, 52 Fed. 823. Allegation of ownership need not be in set words. Arrott I/. Standard Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 1014; Ather- ton Mach. Co. v. Atwood-Morrison Co., 102 Fed. 949, 43 C. C. A. 72. The various assignments by which title was acquired need not be alleged. Edison Electric [XIII, C, 13, b, (I)] 1032 [30 Cye.] PATENTS and should set fortli those facts which are statutory prerequisites to the grant of a valid patent. 50 A positive averment of such prerequisites is necessary. Allega- tions on belief are insufficient. 51 The bill should allege infringement by defendant, 52 Light Co. v. Packard Electric Co., 61 Fed. 1002; Clement Mfg. Co. v. Upson, etc., Co., 40 Fed. 471; Brooks v. Jenkins, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,953, Fish. Pat. Rep. 41, 3 McLean 432; Meerse -v. Allen, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 9,393a; Nourse v. Allen, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,367, 4 Blatchf. 376, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 63. Recording of assignment need not be al- leged. Perry v. Corning, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,004, 7 Blatchf. 195. Where judgment of court is relied on to show title such proceedings should be al- leged. Parker v. Brant, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,727, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 58. Presumption as to ownership. Original patentee presumed to be the owner until the contrary appears. Fischer v. Neil, 6 Fed. 89. Insufficient allegation of ownership see Jaros Hygienic Underwear Co. v. Fleece Hy- gienic Underwear Co., 60 Fed. 622. Sufficient allegation of ownership shown see ^Eolian Co. v. Hallett, etc., Piano Co., 134 Fed. 872; General Electric Co. v. Wag- ner Electric Mfg. Co., 123 Fed. 101 [affirmed in 130 Fed. 772, 66 C. C. A. 82]; Arnold Monophase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 118 Fed. 653; Goss Printing-Press Co. v. Scott, 108 Fed. 253, 47 C. C. A. 302, 110 Fed. 402, 49 C. C. A. 97. Sufficient allegations as to territorial as- signment see Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. t?. Haish, 4 Fed. 900, 10 Biss. 65. 50. Eastwood ?;. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co., 148 Fed. 718; American Graphophone Co. v. National Phonograph Co., 127 Fed. 349; Rub- ber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359, design patents. An allegation that the invention was not in public use or on sale for two years before application is necessary. Hayes-Young Tie Plate Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co., 130 Fed. 900 [affirmed in 137 Fed. 80, 70 C. C. A. 1] ; Krick v. Janscn, 52 Fed. 823; Coop v. Dr. Savage Physical Development Inst., 47 Fed. 899; Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 894; Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 47 Fed. 522; Blessing t?. John Trageser Steam Copper Works, 34 Fed. 753. Contra, Noe v. Prentice, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,284a. It is not sufficient to allege that it was not in public use or on sale with the inventor's consent. Coop v. Dr. Savage Physi- cal Development Inst., supra', Blessing v. John Trageser Steam Copper Works, supra. An allegation that the invention was not patented or described in a printed publica- tion is necessary. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; Diamond Match Co. v. Ohio Match Co., 80 Fed. 117; Goebel v. Amer- ican R. Supply Co., 55 Fed. 825; Overman Wheel Co. v. Elliott Hickory Cycle Co., 49 Fed. 859. An allegation as to foreign patent must be made under U. S. Rev. St. 4887, as amended March 3, 1897, 29 U. S. St. at L. 692 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3382]; Elli- [XIII, C, 13, b, (l)] ott, etc., Book-Typewriter Co. v. Fisher Type- writer Co., 109 Fed. 330. An allegation that the invention was not abandoned is unnecessary since that is matter of defense. Warren Featherbone Co. v. War- ner Bros. Co., 92 Fed. 990. Proceedings in patent office. The filing of application for patent in due form is pre- sumed from grant of patent and need not be alleged, any defect therein being matter of defense (Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 Fed. 39) ; nor is it necessary in a suit for infringe- ment of a reissued patent to allege specifi- cally the ground on which reissue was ob- tained ( Spaeth v. Barney, 22 Fed. 828 ) . The fact that some patents in suit have expired does not render the bill bad. Where the inventions covered by several patents en- ter into and constitute one compact machine, it is necessary in suing for infringement to complain upon all the patents. Russell v. Kern, 58 Fed. 382 [affirmed in 64 Fed. 581]. Separate affidavit as to inventorship is unnecessary. Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 894. An allegation of prior adjudication sustain- ing patent is impertinent unless injunction is p raved. Haarmann v. Lueders, 109 Fed. 327; Wirt v. Hicks, 46 Fed. 71. But prior litigation may be recited where injunction is sought. American Bell Tel. Co. y. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803; Steam-Gauge, etc., Co. v. McRoberts, 26 Fed. 765. Immaterial matters alleged in the bill will be stricken out on motion. Western Electric Co. v. Williams-Abbott Electric Co., 83 Fed. 842. Bills held sufficient. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; American Cable R. Co. v. New York, 42 Fed. 60; Thompson v. Jewett, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,961. English practice. Complainant must make oath that he believes himself to be the first inventor. Hill v. Thompson, Holt N. P. 636, 3 E. C. L. 249, 3 Meriv. 622, 17 Rev. Rep. 156, 36 Engf. Reprint 239, 2 Moore C. P. 424, 8 Taunt. 375, 20 Rev. Rep. 488, 4 E. C. L. 190. Enrolment within prescribed time must be alleged. Bentley v. Goldthorp, 1 C. B. 368, 2 D. & L. 795, 9 Jur. 470, 14 L. J. Ch. 115, 50 E. C. L. 368. Express averment of novelty is not necessary. Amory v. Brown, L. R. 8 Eq. 663, 38 L. J. Ch. 593, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 654, 17 Wkly. Rep. 849. 51. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85. 52. General allegation is sufficient. In- durated Fibre Industries Co. v. Grace, 52 Fed. 124; American Bell Tel. Co. V. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. 76, 19 Blatchf. 26; American Diamond Rock- Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 2 Fed. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147; Haven v. Brown, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,228, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 413; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Carbon Stove Co., PATENTS [30 Cyc.] 1033 and should include a prayer for an accounting together with a prayer for equitable relief such as discovery or an injunction. 53 The bill should be verified. 54 (n) PLEA on ANSWER (A) Plea (1) IN GENEKAL. A plea in equity is a special answer urging some particular defense by which the issue is reduced to a single point. Any defense which brings forward new matter in opposition to the equity of the bill may be presented by plea. 55 A mere denial of the allega- tions of the bill without any averment of new matter cannot be made by plea. 56 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13.864, 4 Ban. & A. 68, 7 Reporter 199, 15 Off. Gaz. 1051, 2 N. J. L. J. 25; Turrell v. Cammerrer, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,266, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 462. Where the bill does not clearly show wrongful use of the patented invention by defendant it is bad. Knox Rock-Blasting Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co., 87 Fed. 969; American Solid Leather Button Co. v. Empire State Nail Co., 50 Fed. 929; Still v. Reading, 9 Fed. 40, 4 Woods 345 ; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359; Noe v. Prentice, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,284a. Amount of damages need not be alleged. American Graphophone Co. v. National Pho- nograph Co., 127 Fed. 349. Infringement within six years need not be alleged. Peters v. Hanger, 134 Fed. 586, 67 C. C. A. 386 [reversing 127 Fed. 820, 62 C. C. A. 498]. Allegation upon information and belief sufficient. Murray Co. v. Continental Gin Co., 126 Fed. 533 ; Wyckoff v. Wagner Type- writer Co., 88 Fed. 5*15. Allegations held sufficient see Adee v. Peck, 42 Fed. 497 [following Adee v. Peck, 39 Fed. 209] ; Schneider v. Missouri Glass Co., 36 Fed. 582; Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444; McMillin v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., 18 Fed. 260, 5 McCrary 561. English practice. Particulars should be given. Ledgard v. Bull, 11 App. Cas. 648; Batley v. Kynock, L. R. 19 Eq. 229, 44 L. J. Ch. 219, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 573, 23 Wkly. Rep. 209; Finnegan v. James, L. R. 19 Eq. 72, 44 L. J. Ch. 185, 23 Wkly. Rep. 373; Needham v. Oxley, 1 Hem. & M. 248, 9 Jur. N. S. 598, 8 L. T." Rep. N. S. 532, 2 New Rep. 267, 11 Wkly. Rep. 745, 71 Eng. Reprint 108; Wenham Co. v. Champion Gas Lamp Co., 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 827. But see Talbot v. La Roche, 15 C. B. 310, 2 C. L. R. 836, 80 E. C. L. 310. 53. American Graphophone Co. v. National Phonograph Co., 127 Fed. 349. Interrogations. Interrogatories as to busi- ness not permitted until validity of patent and infringement shown. Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Automatic Wringer Co., 124 Fed. 971; Keller r. Strauss, 88 Fed. 517. Permitted where validity not in issue. Haarmann v. Lueders, 109 Fed. 327. Production of books. Complainant cannot compel production of all books of a big con- cern, but must specify those wanted. Fuller r. Field, 82 Fed. 813/27 C. C. A. 165. Damages by name need not be prayed. Emerson v. Simm, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4.443, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 281, 3 Off. Gaz. 293. Prayers held sufficient see Wyckoff v. Wag- ner Typewriter Co., 88 Fed. 515; Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. 338, 18 Blatchf. 92. English practice. Discovery may be had, although patent has not been sustained. Fox- well v. Webster, 9 Jur. N. S. 1189, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 363, 3 New Rep. 103, 12 Wkly. Rep. 94; Benno Jaffe, etc.. Lanolin Fabrik v. Richardson, 62 L. J. Ch. 710, 68 L. T. Rep. N. S. 404, 3 Reports 515, 41 Wkly. Rep. 534; Swinborne v. Nelson, 22 L. J. Ch. 331, 1 Wkly. Rep. 155; Renard v. Levinstein, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 94, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 79, 3 New Rep. 665. Discovery before plea see Jones v. Pratt. 6 H. & N. 697, 7 Jur. N. S. 978, 30 L. J. Exch. 365, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 411, 9 Wkly. Rep. 696; Thomas v. Tillie, 17 Ir. C. L. 783. May have discovery of names of purchasers. Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 15 Eq. 115, 42 L. J. Ch. 191, 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 664, 21 Wkly. Rep. 498; Tetley v. Easton, 18 C. B. 643, 25 L. J. C. P. 293, 86 E. C. L. 643; Crossley v. Stewart, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 848, 1 New Rep. 426. Discovery not used op- pressively to compel disclosure of secret proc- esses. Ashworth v. Roberts, 45 Ch. D. 623, 60 L. J. Ch. 27, 63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 160, 39 Wkly. Rep. 170. Canadian practice. Discovery of secret process cannot be had until the validity of the patent is established. Dickerson v. Rad- cliffe, 17 Ont. Pr. 586. 54. Verification on "belief" is insufficient. It should be positive. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85. But see Elliott, etc., Book-Typewriter Co. v. Fisher Type- writer Co., 109 Fed. 330. Assignee may verify. Thompson v. Jewett, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,961. Equitable owner may verify. Goodyear v. Allyn, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,555, 6 Blatchf. 33, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 374. 55. See cases cited infra, this note. Objection to the jurisdiction of the court may be taken by plea. Edison Electric Light Co. V. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 35 Fed. 134. Reissue departing from original. The de- fense that a reissue sued on is invalid because it covers an invention not included in the original may be presented by a special plea. Hubbell V. De Land, 14 Fed. 471, 11 Biss. 382. The defense of laches may be presented by plea. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 55 Fed. 478. Date of patent. A defense to a suit for infringement on the ground that the patent bears date more than six months later than the notice given to the applicant of the al- lowance of the application may properly be taken by plea. Western Electric Co. v. North Electric Co., 135 Fed. 79, 67 C. C. A. 553. 56. Hubbell v. De Land, 14 Fed. 471, 11 [XIII, C, 13, b, (II), (A), (1)] 1034 [30 Cye.] PATENTS (2) REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY. The allegations of the plea should be direct and distinct, 57 and must be limited to a single defense or issue, unless, by permission of the court, defendant is allowed to plead double. 58 A plea may con- tain an averment of several facts, but they must all conduce to a single point of defense. 59 If the plea contains more than one defense, the practice is not to con- fine defendant to his first ground of defense by striking out the others, but to allow him either to set down the pleas as an answer, or to put him to his election as to which of the pleas he will abide by. 60 (3) EFFECT OF SETTING DOWN FOE ARGUMENT. By setting down pleas for argument, a complainant admits the facts, but not the conclusions, pleaded therein. 61 (B) Answer (1) MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE RAISED BY ANSWER. Defenses which go to the merits and relate in no wise to matters in abatement or in bar must be raised by answer. 62 But where the infringement complained of has not been committed by defendant but by another person, this issue may be tendered by plea. 63 So also the defenses mentioned in the statute w must be set up by answer and not by plea. 65 (2) REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY. The allegations of the answer must be sufficiently definite and precise to inform plaintiff what defense he has to meet. 66 It must include all matters of defense on which defendant intends to rely, except Biss. 382; Sharp v. Reissner, 9 Fed. 445, 20 Blatchf. 10. 57. Westinghouse, etc., Co. v. Stanley, 65 Fed. 321. 58. Schnauffer v. Aste, 148 Fed. 867 ; West- ern Electric Co. v. North Electric Co., 135 Fed. 79, 67 C. C. A. 553; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. 509. 59. Reissner v. Anness, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,686, 3 Ban. & A. 148, 12 Off. Gaz. 842. 60. Reissner v. Anness, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,686, 3 Ban. & A. 148, 12 Off. Gaz. 842. 61. General Electric Co. v. New England Electric Mfg. Co., 128 Fed. 738, 63 C. C. A. 448; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Equitable L. Assur. Co., 55 Fed. 478. By taking issue upon a plea the complain- ant admits its sufficiency. Birdseye v. Heil- ner, 26 Fed. 147. 62. See cases cited infra, this note. The defenses of lack of invention and non- infringement cannot be made by plea, but only by answer. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. Douglass, etc., Co., 145 Fed. 949; Western Electric Co. v. North Electric Co., 135 Fed. 79, 67 C. C. A. 553; Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 833; Leatherbee v. Brown, 69 Fed. 590; Korn v. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. 50; Sharp v. Reissner, 9 Fed. 445, 20 Blatchf. 10. Issues raised by answer. Where a bill for infringement of a patent against a non-resi- dent defendant alleged infringement in the district where the suit was brought, which allegation was denied in the answer, the is- sue as to infringement is limited to infringe- ment within such district. Gray v. Grin- berg, 159 Fed. 138 [affirming 147 Fed. 732]. 63. Leatherbee v. Brown, 69 Fed. 590. 64. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 65. Carnrick v. McKesson, 8 Fed. 807, 19 Blatchf. 369. The defenses of a prior patent or previous description in a printed publication must be [XIII, C, 13, b, (n), (A), (2)] set up in an answer, and not in a plea. Carn- rick v. McKesson, 8 Fed. 807, 19 Blatchf. 369. A defense of prior invention and use cannot be raised by plea, but only by answer. Ar- rott v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 389. 66. See cases cited infra, this note. If fraud or subterfuge is relied on, the alle- gations must point out specifically the de- tails thereof. American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986 [re- versed on other grounds in 80 Fed. 395, 25 C. C. A. 500] ; Clark v. Scott, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,833, 9 Blatchf. 301, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 245, 2 Off. Gaz. 4; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,029, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 553; Gear v. Grosvenor, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,291, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314, Holmes 215, 3 Off. Gaz. 380, holding that an allegation that an extension of a patent was procured by fraud, misrep- resentation, and in violation of law is simply an allegation of a conclusion of law from facts which facts are not pleaded. The denial of infringement, it has been held, must be specific and unevasive. Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 Fed. 374; Miller v. Bu- chanan, 5 Fed. 366; Jordan v. Wallace, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,523, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 185, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 165. The issue of abandonment must be ten- dered by clear and specific averments. West- ern Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 58 Fed. 186, 7 C. C. A. 164. The defense of prior patent is insufficient without a distinct averment that the inven- tion had been before patented. Saunders V. Allen, 53 Fed. 109. A denial of the novelty of the invention described in the patent named in the bill, specifying it by number, is sufficient to raise the issue of invention, although the title of the patent as stated in the answer may be technically inaccurate. Robinson v. Ameri- PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1035 such as are proper subjects of a plea or a demurrer. 67 Defenses not set up in the answer will not be considered by the court in rendering its decision. 68 More than one defense may be presented in an answer in equity, 69 provided they are not inconsistent ; 70 but each should be separately and clearly alleged without condition or qualification. 71 They ought not to be blended in the same allegations where they depend upon different principles. 72 (3) AMENDMENT. The general rules governing the allowance of amendments to answers in equity cases are applicable in suits for the infringement of patents. 73 An amendment will not be allowed where it appears that the matter of the pro- posed amendment could, with reasonable diligence, have been sooner introduced into the answer 74 where it would be inconsistent with the answer as filed ; 75 or where, upon the state of facts shown by the movant's affidavits, plaintiff's patent would not be defeated. 76 Nor will a motion to amend be regarded favorably where the new defense is dependent wholly on parol evidence. 77 Authority to grant the amendment being established, the court may properly allow it to be entered nunc pro tune (4) ADMISSIONS IN ANSWER. An allegation of infringement in the bill should be answered distinctly and unevasively, and if defendant does not deny or dis- prove it the fact of infringement is admitted. 79 The fact thus admitted must be can Car, etc., Co., 135 Fed. 693, 68 C. C. A. 331. 67. See Robinson Pat. 1115. 68. Session v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 S. Ct. 799, 36 L. ed. 609 ; Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. 458; Burden v. Corning, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,143, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 477; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Jennings v. Pierce, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,283, 3 Ban. & A. 361, 15 Blatchf. 42; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Pitts -v. Edmonds, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,191, 1 Biss. 168, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 52; Williams v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,716, 4 Ban. & A. 441, 17 Blatchf. 21, 16 Off. Gaz. 906; Wonson v. Peterson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,934, 3 Ban. & A. 249, 13 Off. Gaz. 548; Wyeth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23, 1 Story 273. Compare Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263 ; Dun- lap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244, 14 S. Ct. 576, 38 L. ed. 426; Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Hogg, 70 Fed. 787. The defense of prior use should be pleaded, or notice given before trial, with particulars of time, place, and persons. Klein v. Seattle, 63 Fed. 702 [affirmed in 77 Fed. 200, 23 C. C. A. 114]. Want of novelty as a defense to a suit for infringement must be specially alleged. Gui- det v. Barber, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,857, 5 Off. Gaz. 149; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533. The defense of non-patentability can be availed of without setting it up in the an- swer. Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 S. Ct. 1275, 32 L. ed. 207; Guidet v. Barber, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,857, 5 Off. Gaz. 149. 69. Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5.671, 4 Cliff. 88, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630. 70. National Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. 355. Defenses are inconsistent when they cannot both be true, but where there are different defenses and they may all be true, although entirely different in their nature, they are not inconsistent. National Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. 355. 71. Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,671, 4 Cliff. 88, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. 72. Jones v. Sewall, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,495, 3 Cliff. 563, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343, 3 Off. Gaz. 630. 73. See EQUITY, 16 Cyc. 1. Absence of laches. The amendment of an answer may be permitted where there has been no laches or delay, where the applica- tion was made as soon as the new facts were discovered, and there is nothing contradictory or inconsistent between the answer as filed and the amendment proposed to be made. Morehead v. Jones, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,791, 3 Wall. Jr. 306. 74. India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,025, 8 Blatchf. 85, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 315; Ruggles v. Eddy, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,118, 1 Ban. & A. 92, 11 Blatchf. 524. 75. Pentlarge v. Beeston, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,964, 4 Ban. & A. 23, 15 Blatchf. 347. 76. Richardson v. Croft, 11 Fed. 800. 77. India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,025, 8 Blatchf. 85, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 315. 78. Roemer v. Simon, 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 384. 79. Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 Fed. 374; Lane v. Soveri^n, 43 Fed. 890; Globe Nail Co. v. Superior "Nail Co., 27 Fed. 454; Ely v. Mon- son, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566; Jordan v. Wallace, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,523, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 185, 8 Phila. 165. [XIII, C, 13, b, (II), (B), (4)] 1036 [30 Cyc.] PATENTS accepted as established, 80 but the admission need go no further than its terms necessarily imply. 81 (5) NOTICE OF SPECIAL MATTER (a) NECESSITY. Under the statute K persons sued as infringers in a suit in equity, if they give the required notice in their answer, may prove at the final hearing the same special matters in defense to the charge of infringement as those which defendant, in an action at law, may set up under like conditions. 83 ^Notices of the kind, when the suit is in equity, may be given in the answer or amended answer, 84 and must be filed fully thirty days before trial. 85 Under such a pleading and notice, the respondent in an equity suit may prove that the patentee was not the original and first inventor of the alleged improvement, or that it had been patented or described in some printed publication, or that the invention had been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to the application ; and the provision is that the judgment or decree must be in favor of the defending party if he proves any one or more of these special matters. 86 Where the defenses of prior invention, knowledge, or use is set up, the answer must allege the names and places of resi- dence of those whom they intend to prove have possessed prior knowledge of the thing, and where the same has been used. 87 Testimony of witnesses examined in a case as to alleged prior use, etc., by parties of whom no notice was given in the answer, is incompetent; 88 such testimony is admissible only for the purpose of showing the state of the art at the time of the patentee's invention. 89 But notice of the names and places of residence of the witnesses by whom it is intended to prove such prior knowledge and use is not required. 90 The defenses authorized by statute 91 are separate and independent defenses ; and each requires 80. Jones v. Morehead, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 155, 17 L. ed. 662; Lane v. Soverign, 43 Fed. 890; Jordan v. Wallace, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,523, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 185, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 165. 81. Jones v. Morehead, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 155, 17 L. ed. 662. 82. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 83. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68. The option which is given by statute to file the general issue and give notice does not take away the right to set up the special matter in a plea. Phillips v. Combstock, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,099, 4 McLean 525, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 724. 84. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68. 85. Brunswick v. Holzalb, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,057. Plaintiff is entitled to the thirty days whether the matter be set up by plea or no- tice. Phillips v. Combstock, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,099, 4 McLean 525, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 724. 86. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68. 87. Anderson v. Miller, 129 U. S. 70, 9 S. Ct. 224, 32 L. ed. 635; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177; Tatum v. Eby, 60 Fed. 403 (holding that an allegation that a prior machine was built by a person named is not an allegation of prior use by that person) ; Brown v. Hall, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,008, 6 Blatchf. 401, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Earl v. Dexter, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,242, 1 Ban. & A. 400, Holmes 412, 6 Off. Gaz. 729; Graham v. Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,671, 4 Cliff. 88, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Orr v. Merrill, 18 Fed. [XIIL C. 13. b, (n), (B), (4)] Cas. No. 10,591, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331, 1 Woodb. & M. 376. Place of use essential. A notice of a de- fense of prior use which recites the names and residences of the alleged users, but wholly omits to describe the place of such use, is fatally defective. Diamond Match Co. V. Schenck, 71 Fed. 521 [affirmed in 77 Fed. 208, 23 C. C. A. 122]. Prior patents relied on by a defendant in a suit for infringement as anticipations of the one in suit must be pleaded (Jones v. Cy- phers, 115 Fed. 324 [affirmed in 126 Fed. 753, 62 C. C. A. 21]; Odiorne v. Denney, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,431, 3 Ban. & A. 287, 13 Off. Gaz. 965, 1 N. J. L. J. 183) ; otherwise they can- not be considered for that purpose, but only to show the state of the art, and to limit the claims involved (Jones v. Cyphers, supra). 88. Stevenson v. Magowan, 31 Fed. 824; Bragg v. Stockton, 27 Fed. 509; Collender v. Griffith, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,000, 11 Blatchf. 213, 3 Off. Gaz. 689; Decker v. Grote, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,726, 10 Blatchf. 331, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143, 3 Off. Gaz. 65; La Baw v, Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,960, 1 Ban. & A. 428, 6 Off. Gaz. 724. 89. Kennedy v. Solar Refining Co., 69 Fed. 715; Stevenson v. Magowan, 31 Fed. 824; Geier v. Goetinger, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,299, 1 Ban. & A. 553, 7 Off. Gaz. 563; La Baw v. Hawkins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,960, 1 Ban. & A. 428, 6 Off. Gaz. 724. 90. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 939; Allis v. Buckstaff, 13 Fed. 879; Wilton v. Railroads, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,857, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 641, 1 Wall. Jr. 192. 91. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1037 its appropriate notice or answer in. order to let in evidence to establish the defense. 92 (b) SUFFICIENCY. In giving such notice, the respondent is not bound to be so specific as to relieve the other from all inquiry or effort to investigate the facts. If he fairly supplies his adversary with the means of verifying his proof it is all that can be required ; 93 and he is not bound by his notice to impose an unneces- sary and embarrassing restriction on his own right of producing proof of what he asserts. 94 (c) VERIFICATION. The notice required to be given by the statute 95 need not be under oath. 96 (d) WAIVER. The absence of notice of want of novelty is waived where the testimony of witnesses to prove such defense is received without objection. 97 (in) CROSS BILL. The general rules in regard to the tiling of a cross bill apply to cross bills filed in patent suits. 98 Thus it must be germane to the original bill, 99 and must not include mere matters of defense. 1 (iv) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. The general rules relating to supplemental bills, apply in suits for infringement of patents. 2 (v) DEMURRER AND EXCEPTIONS. The filing of a demurrer or exceptions is controlled by the ordinary rules of equity pleading. 3 If the patent is void on its 92. Meyers v. Busby, 32 Fed. 670, 13 Sawy. 33 93. Wise v. Allis, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 737, 19 L. ed. 784 (holding that it is sufficient, in a suit for infringing a patent for such large objects as millstones, to state the names and addresses of the witnesses without stating the particular mill in which the stones were used) ; Smith v. Frazer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,048, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543, 2 Off. Gaz. 175, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 397. 94. Wise v. Allis, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 737, 19 L. ed. 784. 95. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. 96. Campbell v. New York, 45 Fed. 243. 97. Crouch v. Speer, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438, 1 Ban. & A. 145, 6 Off. Gaz. 187 ; Roemer V. Simon, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,997, 1 Ban. & A. 138, 5 Off. Gaz. 555 [affirmed in 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 384]. 98. See cases cited infra, this section. 99. Welsbach Light Co. v. Cosmopolitan Incandescent Gaslight Co., 78 Fed. 639; New Departure Bell Co. v. Hardware Specialty Co., 62 Fed. 462; International Tooth-Crown Co. v. Carmichael, 44 Fed. 350; Johnson R. Signal Co. v. Union Switch, etc., Co., 43 Fed. 331; Curran v. St. Charles Car Co., 32 Fed. 835. 1. Welsbach Light Co. v. Cosmopolitan In- candescent Gaslight Co., 78 Fed. 639; Atkins v. Parke, 61 Fed. 953, 10 C. C. A. 189; Puetz v. Bransford, 32 Fed. 318. 2. Newly discovered evidence. Supplemen- tal bills in the nature of a bill of review permitted upon newly discovered evidence. Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 138 Fed. 833; Kelley v. Diamond Drill, etc., Co., 136 Fed. 855, 69 C. C. A. 599; Municipal Signal Co. v. Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 77 Fed. 452. Contra, where the evidence might have been discovered originally. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co., 138 Fed. 823, 71 C. C. A. 189; Bennett v. Schooley, 77 Fed. 352. New infringement. Supplemental bill is permitted as to new infringement since origi- nal bill. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co., 126 Fed. 764. Contra, Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 137 Fed. 101. Supplemental bill setting up adjudication in other circuits is permitted. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602. Supplemental bill bringing in other defend- ants overruled. Tubman v. Wason Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 429. Suit on original patent cannot be continued as to reissue by supplemental bill see Fry v. Quinlan, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,140, 13 Blatchf. 205. Contra, Woodworth v. Stone, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,021, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 296, 3 Story 749. 3. Thus the point that the allegations of the bill are insufficient may be taken by de- murrer. Hutton v. Star Slide Seat Co., 60 Fed. 747; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 Fed. 600; Coop v. Dr. Savage Physical Development Inst., 47 Fed. 899; International Terra-Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. 618; Mershon v. J. F. Pease Furnace Co., 24 Fed. 741, 23 Blatchf. 329 ; Fischer v. O'Shaughnessey, 6 Fed. 92. Demurrer for insufficiency overruled see Bragg Mfg. Co. v. Hartford, 56 Fed. 292; Allis v. Stowell, 15 Fed. 242; Perry v. Corn- ing, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,004, 7 Blatchf. 195; Woodworth v. Edwards, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,014, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 610, 3 Woodb. & M. 120. Reference in bill to patents not produced does not place them before the court for con- sideration on demurrer. Bowers v. Bucynn Co., 132 Fed. 39; Warner Bros. Co. r. War- ren- Featlierbone Co., 97 Fed. 604. Patentability not admitted by demurrer see Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444. Exceptions for discovery see Graham V. [XIII, C, 13, b, (v)] 1038 [30 Cye.] PATENTS face the point may be made by and determined on demurrer. 4 In determining the question of validity the court will take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge. 5 (vi) AMENDMENTS, VARIANCE, AND MULTIFARIOUSNESS. The ordinary rules which govern equity pleading are held applicable in respect of the amendment of pleadings in suits brought for the infringement of patents. 6 They are like- Mason, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,671, 4 Cliff. 88. 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. Exceptions for surplusage see Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 142. 4. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 991 [affirming 40 Fed. 165] ; Jackes-Evans Mfg. Co. v. Hemp, 140 Fed. 254, 71 C. C. A. 646; Ameri- can Salesbook Co. v. Carter-Crume Co., 125 Fed. 499 [reversed on other grounds in 129 Fed. 1004, 62 C. C. A. 679] ; Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weir Frog Co., 83 Fed. 170, 27 C. C. A. 502 [affirming 75 Fed. 279] ; Covert v. Travers Bros. Co., 70 Fed. 788; Heaton- Periinsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Schlocht- meyer, 69 Fed. 592; Root v. Sontag, 47 Fed. 309; Bottle Seal Co. v. De la Vergne Bottle, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 59; Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. 292 ; West v. Rae, 33 Fed. 45 ; Kaola- type Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444-. Invalidity must be obvious and not doubt- ful see Hogan v. Westmoreland Specialty Co., 154 Fed. 66, 83 C. C. A. 178; General Electric Co. v. Campbell, 137 Fed. 600; Regensberg v. American Exch. Cigar Co., 130 Fed. 549; American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin- Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 C. C. A. 662; Cleveland Faucet Co. v. Vulcan Brass Co., 72 Fed. 505; Caldwell v. Powell, 71 Fed. 970 [reversed on other grounds in 73 Fed. 488, 19 C. C. A. 592] ; Covert v. Travers Bros. Co., 70 Fed. 788; Heaton-Peninsular Button- Fastener Co. v. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. 592; Drainage Constr. Co. v. Englewood Sewer Co.. 67 Fed. 141; Rodwell Mfg. Co. v. Housman, 58 Fed. 870; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 Fed. 600; Goebel v. American R. Supply Co., 55 Fed. 825; Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 Fed. 295 ; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Adkins, 36 Fed. 554; Dick V. Oil Well Supply Co., 25 Fed. 105. Unless invalidity is so clear that no evi- dence could change the conclusion, a de- murrer will not be sustained. A. R. Milner Seating Co. v. Yesbera, 111 Fed. 386, 49 C. C. A. 397; Neidich v. Fosbenner, 108 Fed. 266; Electric Vehicle Co. v. Winton Motor- Carriage Co., 104 Fed. 814; Ballou v. Potter, 88 Fed. 786; Patent Button Co. v. Consoli- dated Fastener Co., 84 Fed. 189; Blessing v. John Trageser Steam Copper Works, 34 Fed. 753. Sufficiency of disclosure in patent will not be passed upon on demurrer. Dade v. Boorum, etc., Co., 121 Fed. 135. Prior art will not be investigated on de- murrer. Rowe v. Blodgett, etc., Co., 87 Fed. 868. Identity with prior expired patents to the same inventor will be considered on demurrer. Russell v. Kern, 64 Fed. 581 [affirmed in 69 Fed. 94, 16 C. C. A. 154]. [XIII, C, 13, b, (v)] Invalidity of reissue when compared to original patent will be determined on de- murrer where original patent and reissue before court. Edison v. American Mutoscope, etc., Co., 127 Fed. 361 ; Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Meyrose, 12 Fed. 440. Cases in which demurrer sustained and pat- ent held void see Lamson Consol. Service Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 106 Fed. 734; Lyons v. Bishop, 95 Fed. 154; E. Ingraham Co. v. E. N. Welch Mfg. Co., 92 Fed. 1019, 35 C. C. A. 163; Warren Featherbone Co. v. Warner Bros. Co., 92 Fed. 990; E. Ingraham Co. v. E. N. Welch Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 1000; Conley v. Marum, 83 Fed. 309; Strom Mfg. Co. t\ Weir Frog Co., 75 Fed. 279. Cases in which demurrer overruled see Fab- ric Coloring Co. v. Alexander Smith, etc., Carpet Co., 109 Fed. 328; Lyons v. Drucker, 106 Fed. 416, 45 C. C. A. 368; J. Elwood Lee Co. v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 105 Fed. 627; Electric Vehicle Co. v. Winton Motor-Car- riage Co., 104 Fed. 814; Fairies Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 102 Fed. 508; Beer v. Walbridge, 100 Fed. 465, 40 C. C. "A. 496 ; Higgin Mfg. Co. V. Scherer, 100 Fed. 459, 40 C. C. A. 491; L. E. Waterman Co. t\ Vassar College, 99 Fed. 564 : Warren Featherbone Co. v. Warner Bros. Co., 92 Fed. 990; Chandler Adjustable Chair, etc., Co. v. Heywood Bros., etc., Co., 91 Fed. 163; Ballou v. Potter, 88 Fed. 786; Noe v. Prentice, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,284a. 5. Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L. ed. 532; Terhune V. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592, 25 L. ed. 293; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weit Frog Co., 83 Fed. 170, 27 C. C. A. 502; Caldwell v. Powell, 71 Fed. 970 [reversed on other grounds in 73 Fed. 488, 19 C. C. A. 592] ; Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. V. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. 592 [affirmed in 72 Fed. 520, 18 C. C. A. 674] ; Root v. Sontag, 47 Fed. 309; Eclipse Mfg. Co. V. Adkins, 36 Fed. 554; Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444; Knapp v. Benedict, 26 Fed. 627. Court must distinguish between special knowledge and common and general knowl- edge see American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buck- skin-Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 C. C. A. 662 ; Cleveland Faucet Co. v. Vulcan Brass Co., 72 Fed. 505. There must be no doubt that the knowledge is common. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mosheim, 48 Fed. 452. 6. Incomplete or indefinite allegations of the bill may be cured by amendment (Union Switch, etc.*, Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 68 Fed. 914; New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Mfg. Co., 64 Fed. 859 [reversed on other grounds in 73 Fed. 469, 19 C. C. A. 534]; Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. 404 [re- versed on other grounds in 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288] ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1039 wise held applicable in respect of multifariousness, 7 and variance between the allegations and proofs. 8 14. EVIDENCE 9 a. In General. The ordinary rules of evidence are applicable to suits for infringement, so far as the special nature of the right in controversy permits and except where modified by special statutory provisions. 10 Mather Electric Co., 53 Fed. 244; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 20 Fed. 505), and amendment is permitted to bring iii some new fact (John R. Williams Co. v. Miller, etc., Mfg. Co., 108 Fed. 967; Patent-Button Co. v. Pilcher, 95 Fed. 479; Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Mustard, 87 Fed. 336; Reay v. Berlin, etc., Envelope Co., 30 Fed. 448; Reay v. Raynor, 19 Fed. 308; Holste v. Robertson, 4 Ch. D. 9, 46 L. J. Ch. 1, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 457, 25 Wkly. Rep. 35; Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 1 Eq. 548). Amendment of answer. The answer may be amended by giving new names of wit- nesses or new facts of anticipations. Roemer v. Simon, 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 384; Stand- ard Elevator Interlock Co. v. Ramsey, 130 Fed. 151; Campbell v. New York, 45 Fed. 243; Babcock, etc., Co. v. Pioneer Iron- Works, 34 Fed. 338; Morehead v. Jones, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,791, 3 Wall. Jr. 306. Amendment to answer refused where facts should have been discovered and alleged originally (India Rub- ber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,025, 8 Blatchf. 85, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 315) ; or where amendment would not change the decision (Richardson v. Croft, 11 Fed. 800). Amendment to deny former admissions will be refused. Pentlarge v. Beeston, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,964, 4 Ban. & A. 23, 15 Blatchf. 347; Ruggles v. Eddy, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,118, 1 Ban. & A. 92, 11 Blatchf. 524. 7. Patents capable of conjoint use. Suit on several patents is not multifarious where they are capable of conjoint use and such use is alleged. Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. 17. Chillicothe, 7 Fed. 351 ; Gillespie v. Cum- mings, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,434, 1 Ban. & A. 587, 3 Sawy. 259; Meerse v. Allen, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,*393a; Nourse v. Allen, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,367, 4 Blatchf. 376, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 63. Unless conjoint use by defendant is alleged, a suit on several patents is multi- farious. Western Tel. Mfg. Co. v. American Electric Tel. Co., 137 Fed. 603; Russell v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 97 Fed. 634; Louden Mach. Co. v. Ward, 96 Fed. 232; Union Switch, etc., Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 833 ; Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. 702, 18 Blatchf. 420; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,2616, 19 Off. Gaz. 177; Nellis v. McLanahan, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,099, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 286. A bill primarily for infringement is not rendered multifarious by setting out a con- tract between plaintiff and defendant bind- ing defendant not to contest the validity of the patent. Dunham v. Bent, 72 Fed. 60. A bill claiming relief for interfering patents and infringement is not multifarious. Stone- metz Printers' Mach. Co. v. Brown Co., 46 Fed. 72. A bill on expired and unexpired patents is not multifarious. Huntington Dry Pulverizer Co. t;. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 130 Fed. 558; Roemer v. Logowitz, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,996. A bill for infringement praying cancella- tion of assignment is not multifarious. Ath- erton Mach. Co. v. Atwood Morrison Co 102 Fed. 949, 43 C. C. A.. 72. A bill praying, relief from infringement of a patent and unfair competition is multifari- ous. George Frost Co. v. Kora Co., 136 Fed. 487 {.affirmed in 140 Fed. 987, 71 C. C. A. 19] ; Ball, etc., Fastener Co. v. Cohn, 90 Fed. 664. A bill joining infringement of a patent and slander is multifarious. Fougeres v. Mur- barger, 44 Fed. 292. A bill to enjoin infringement and the use of the name applied to the article by the pat- entee is not multifarious. Adam v. Folger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. C. A. 540; Jaros Hygie- nic Underwear Co. i\ Fleece Hygiene Un- derwear Co., 60 Fed. 622. 8. Tryon v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,208, Pet. C. C. 96, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 64. 9. See, generally, EVIDENCE. 10. See, generally, EVIDENCE. Prior patents and publications. Prior pat- ents are admissible in actions at law under the general issue without any special notice, and in equity suits without any averment in the answer touching the subject, to show the state of the art (Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S. 412, 7 S. Ct. 718, 30 L. ed. 712; Jones v. Cyphers, 126 Fed. 753, 62 C. C. A. 21; Par- sons v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 125 Fed. 386 [affirmed in 134 Fed. 394, 67 C. C. A. 392]; Myers v. Sternheim, 97 Fed. 625, 38 C. C. A. 345; American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 315, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 353, Holmes 133, 2 Off. Gaz. 59. But see Clark v. Adie, 3 Ch. D. 134, 45 L. J. Ch. 228, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 349, 24 Wkly. Rep. 1007 [af- firmed in 2 App. Cas. 423, 46 L. J. Ch. 598, 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 26 Wkly. Rep. 45]; Atty.-Gen. v. Taylor, Prec. Ch. 59, 24 Eng. Reprint 29), and to aid the court in the construction of a patent sued on (Grier v. Wilt, supra; Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429, 6 S. Ct. 229, 29 L. ed. 419; Parsons v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., supra), but not to show want of novelty in the inven- tion claimed in complainant's patent (Grier v. Wilt, supra; American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, supra; Howe v. Williams, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,778, 2 Cliff. 245, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395), or for the purpose of showing anticipation (Jones v. Cyphers, supra. See also Myers i?. Brown, 102 Fed. 250, 42 C. C. A. 320), and a prior foreign publication is competent as evidence in regard to the state of the art, and as a foundation for the inquiry [XIII, C, 14, a] 1040 [30 Cye.] PATENTS b. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. The patent is presumptively valid and the burden is on defendant to show its invalidity 11 beyond a reasonable whether it required invention to pass from a structure set forth in the publication to the patented structure (French v. Carter, 137 U. S. 239, 11 S. Ct. 90, 34 L. ed. 664). Patents relied on must be properly intro- duced. Oregon Imp. Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 132 U. S. 215, 10 S. Ct. 54, 33 L. ed. 344; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Gibson, 56 Fed. 143, 5 C. C. A. 451 ; Alaska Refrigerator Co. v. Wisconsin Refrigerator Co., 47 Fed. 324; National Pump Cylinder Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co., 18 Fed. 324, 5 McCrary 592; Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397; Grover, etc., Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Sloat, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,846, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 112. Ex parte affidavits are not admissible. Lilienthal v. Washburn, 8 Fed. 707, 4 Woods 65. Decision and evidence in interference in- volving different parties are not admissible. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Roberts, 125 Fed. 6. Admissions or declarations. It is com- petent to prove admissions or declarations by a party to the suit bearing upon the ques- tion at issue. National Cash-Register Co. v. Leland, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372; Rose v. Hirsh, 77 Fed. 469, 23 C. C. A. 246; Wright v. Postel, 44 Fed. 352; Sugar Ap- paratus Mfg. Co. v. Yaryan Mfg. Co., 43 Fed. 140; Thacher Heating Co. v. Drummond, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,865, 3 Ban. & A. 138. Ad- missions by the inventor are not binding against the assignee. Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. (U. S.) 109, 13 L. ed. 66. Opinion expressed before suit is not binding. Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredge Co., 75 Fed. 670, 21 C. C. A. 491. Testimony that witness never heard of in- vention before plaintiff made it is not admis- sible. Hitchcock v. Shoninger Melodeon Co., 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,537. Evidence of purchase by plaintiff's agent from defendant for purpose of showing in- fringement is admissible. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Klopstein, 125 Fed. 543; De Florez v. Raynolds, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,742, 3 Ban. & A. 292, 14 Blatchf. 505. Contra, Byam v. Bullard, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,262, 1 Curt. 100. Names of customers. Defendant is not compelled to give names of customers where infringement and validity denied. Roberts v. Walley, 14 Fed. 167. Experiments conducted with a view to liti- gation are looked on with distrust. Young v. Fernie, 4 Giffard 577, 10 Jur. N. S. 926, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861, 4 New Rep. 218, 12 Wkly. Rep. 901, 66 Eng. Reprint 836. Communications to patent agent as such are not privileged. Moseley v. Victoria Rub- ber Co., 55 L. T. Rep. N. S. 482. Inadmissible evidence see St. Paul Plow- Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 11 S. Ct. 803, 35 L. ed. 404; Blanchard v. Putnam, 8 [XIII, C, 14, bj Wall. (U. S.) 420, 19 L. ed. 433; Harper, etc., Co. v. Wilgus, 56 Fed. 587, 6 C. C. A. 45; Seibert Cylinder Oil-Cup Co. v. William Powell Co., 38 fed. 600; Judson v. Cope, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565, 1 Bond 327, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615. Weight of evidence see Brill v. St. Louis Car Co., 80 Fed. 909; Dobson v. Graham, 49 Fed. 17 [affirmed in 154 U. S. 501, 14 S. Ct. 1145, 38 L. ed. 1076]; Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Woodman v. Stimpson, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98 [.re- versed on other grounds in 10 Wall. 117, 19 L. ed. 866]. Rebuttal. Prima facie evidence cannot be put in as rebuttal. Smith v. Uhrich, 94 Fed. 865; American Paper Barrel Co. v. Lar- away, 28 Fed. 141; Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397; Stainthorp v. Humiston, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,281, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107. Invention prior to date proved by defend- ant may be shown on rebuttal. St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 4 S. Ct. 803, 35 L. ed. 404 [affirming 29 Fed. 790]. 11. Atwood-Morrison Co. v. Sipp Electric Co., 136 Fed. 859 [reversed on other grounds in 142 Fed. 149] ; De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co., 110 Fed. 538 [affirmed in 117 Fed. 240, 54 C. C. A. 272] ; National Co. v. Belcher, 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375; Williames v. Bernard, 41 Fed. 358; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Molecular Tel. Co., 32 Fed. 214, 23 Blatchf. 253; Hoe v. Cottrell, 1 Fed. 597, 17 Blatchf. 546; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,794, 2 Ban. & A. 436, 4 Cliff. 408, 10 Off. Gaz. 702; Brown v. Whittemore, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,033, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 524, 2 Off. Gaz. 248; Howes v. Nute, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,790, 4 Cliff. 173, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 263; Jordan v. Dobson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,519, 2 Abb. 398, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 533; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fish. Pat. Rep. 441. Where it does not appear that the patent was granted after proper consideration of the prior art, the presumption of validity is not so strong. American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample, 130 Fed. 145, 64 C. C. A. 497; Cleve- land Foundry Co. v. Kaufmann, 120 Fed. 658 [reversed on other grounds in 135 Fed. 360, 68 C. C. A. 658] ; Earle v. Wanamaker, 87 Fed. 740. Where defendant shows use by others before application the burden of proof shifts to patentee to show prior invention. Clark Thread Co. r. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U. S. 481, 11 S. Ct. 846, 35 L. ed. 521; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Consolidated Car- Heating Co., 67 Fed. 121, 14 C. C. A. 232; Caverly v. Deere, 52 Fed. 758. Presumption as to date of invention. The date of application printed in the patent is presumably the date of invention. Drewson PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1041 doubt. 12 But the burden is on plaintiff to prove infringement, 13 and that notice of his rights was given by marking the patented article. 14 He must also prove facts which will show the amount of damages. 15 e. Evidence as to Invalidity of Patent. Evidence of any fact tending to show that the patent is invalid is admissible, 16 provided proper basis for it is laid in the pleadings or under the general issue and provided thirty days' notice in writing is given to plaintiff or his attorney. To prove previous invention, knowledge, or use of a thing patented defendant must state the names of the patentees, dates of the patents, the names and residences of the alleged prior users, and where and by whom the invention was used. 17 v. Hartje Paper Mfg. Co., 131 Fed. 734, 65 C. C. A'. 548. Technical defenses must be clearly proved. A. B. Dick Co. v. Fuerth, 57 Fed. 834. 12. Deer ing v. Winona Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 15 S. Ct. 118, 39 L. ed. 153; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co., 143 U. S. 275, 12 S. Ct. 443, 36 L. ed. 154; Western Electric Co. v. Home Tel. Co., 85 Fed. 649; Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670, 21 C. C. A. 491; Frankfort Whisky Proc- ess Co. v. Mill Creek Distilling Co., 37 Fed. 533; Tompkins f. Gage, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,088, 5 Blatchf. 268, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 577; W T ood v. Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co., 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,941, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550. 13. Infringement is a tort which must be proved and not left to conjecture. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000; National Casket Co. v. Stolts, 135 Fed. 534, 68 C. C. A. 84; King v. Anderson, 90 Fed. 500; Stirling Co. v. Pier- point Boiler Co., 72 Fed. 780, 77 Fed. 1007, 22 C. C. A. 680; Masten v. Hunt, 51 Fed. 216 [affirmed in 55 Fed. 78, 5 C. C. A. 42] ; Royer u. Chicago Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 853; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 4 Fed. 224; Cook v. Howard, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,160, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 269; Dixon v. Moyer, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324, 4 Wash. 68; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,559, 6 Blatchf. 85, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410; Hudson v. Draper, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,834, 4 Cliff. 178, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 256 ; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Sands v. Wardwell, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,306, 3 Cliff. 277; Betts v. Willmott, L. R. 6 Ch. 239, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 188, 19 Wkly. Rep. 369. Use of entire combination and not merely part must be shown. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427, 17 L. ed. 168; Tatum v. Gregory, 41 Fed. 142. Sale at defendant's place of business by an employee is presumably a sale by defendant. Hutler v. De Q. Bottle Stopper Co., 128 Fed. 283, 62 C. C. A. 652. Use of device before patent raises no pre- sumption of infringement afterward. Brill v. St. Louis Car Co., 80 Fed. 909. In a suit against a mere user evidence should be convincing. Marcus v. Sutton, 124 Fed. 74. Where infringement is not explicitly de- nied, little proof is necessary. Hutter v. De Q. [66] Bottle Stopper Co., 119 Fed. 190; Gear v. Fitch, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,290, 3 Ban. & A. 573, 16 Off. Gaz. 1231; Goodyear v. Berry, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,556, 2 Bond 189, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439. Failure of defendant to disclose what he uses justifies presumption of infringement. Read v. Schulze-Berge, 78 Fed. 493; Ely v. Monson, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 240, Holmes 196, 3 Off. Gaz. 97. Identity of product raises presumption that process is the same. Matheson v. Camp- bell, 77 Fed. 280. Where use is proved the burden is on de- fendant to show license. Armat Moving Picture Co. v. Edison Mfg. Co., 121 Fed. 559 [reversed on other grounds in 125 Fed. 939, 60 C. C. A. 380] ; Searls v. Bouton, 12 Fed. 140, 20 Blatchf. 426; Watson v. Smith, 7 Fed. 350; Day v. New England Car-Spring Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,688. Insufficient proof of infringement. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Kaelber, 76 Fed. 804; Commoss v. Somers, 49 Fed. 920; Judson Mfg. Co. v. Burge-Donahoe Co., 47 Fed. 463; Parsons v. Colgate, 15 Fed. 600, 21 Blatchf. 171; Standard Measuring Mach. Co. v. Teague, 15 Fed. 390. Sufficient proof of infringement see White v. Hunter, 47 Fed. 819; Schneider v. Missouri Glass Co., 36 Fed. 582; Kiesele v. Haas, 32 Fed. 794; Peterson v. Simpkins, 25 Fed. 486. 14. Lorain Steel Co. v. New York Switch, etc., Co., 153 Fed. 205. Effect of admission of notice see Lorain Steel Co. v. New York Switch, etc., Co., 153 Fed. 205. 15. Robertson v. Blake, 94 U. S. 728, 24 L. ed. 245; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Burdell v. Denig, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,142, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588; Carter v. Baker, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,472, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 404, 1 Sawy. 512. See also supra, XIII, C, 12, a, b. Where the amount of actual damages is not proved, nominal damages only may be col- lected. New York v. Ransom, 23 How. (U. S.) 487, 16 L. ed. 515. Doubts resolved against wanton infringer see Rose v. Hirsh, 94 Fed. 177, 36 C. C. A. 132. 51 L. R. A. 801. 16. See supra, XIII, A, 1. 17. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920. And see supra, XIII, C, 3, d. [XIII, C, 14, e] 1042 [30 Cye.] PATENTS d. Expert Witnesses. It is proper in patent cases to produce the testimony of expert witnesses to explain the inventions and the differences between inven- tions ; 18 but their testimony is not necessarily accepted as controlling contrary to the judgment of the court, 19 nor is mere opinion evidence admissible. 20 e. Estoppel. Disclaimers 21 and admissions made in the prosecution of the application in the patent office are binding upon the patentee and copies of the office records are admissible to prove them. 22 Defendant cannot as against his assignee produce evidence to show that the patent assigned by him is invalid or that the assignee's title is not good. 23 f. Evidence as to Infringement. Evidence is admissible which tends to show whether or not the claims of the patent properly construed apply to the alleged infringing device. Prior patents and publications are admissible as bearing upon the scope but not the validity of the patent in suit, even where they are not set up in the pleadings or formal notice. 24 g. Secret Inventions. A witness is not required to disclose a secret invention or discovery made or owned by himself. 25 h. Proving Patents and Patent Office Records. A certified copy of any record, book, paper, or drawing belonging to the patent office and of letters 18. Fenton Mfg. Co. v. Office Specialty Co., 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 201; National Cash- Register Co. v. Leland, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372 ; American Linoleum Mfg. Co. v. Nairn Linoleum Co., 44 Fed. 755; Conover v. Rapp, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,124, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 57 ; Hudson v. Draper, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,834, 4 Cliff. 178, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 256; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Levenstein, 24 Ch. D. 156, 52 L. J. Ch. 704, 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 822, 31 Wkly. Rep. 913 [affirmed in 12 App. Cas. 710, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853] ; Seed v. Higgins, 8 H. L. Cas. 550, 6 Jur. N. S. 1264, 30 L. J. Q. B. 314, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 101, 11 Eng. Reprint 544. Where dif- ficult questions are involved, experts are necessary. Fay v. Mason, 127 Fed. 325, 62 C. C. A. 159; Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371 ; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. 359. Where questions involved are clear, ex- perts should not be allowed. Ely v. Monson, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64. Differences in designs may be pointed out. Myers v. Sternheim, 97 Fed. 625, 38 C. C. A. 345. Model is the best evidence of character of machine. Swift v. Whisen, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,700, 2 Bond 115, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. 19. Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order Red Men's Hall Assoc., 94 Fed. 155, 36 C. C. A. 125; Hanifen v. Godshalk Co., 84 Fed. 649, 28 C. C. A. 507; Spaulding v. Tucker, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,220, Deady 649. Evidence of experiments accepted where not contradicted. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik V. Klipstein, etc., Co., 125 Fed. 543; A. B. Dick Co. v. Belke, 86 Fed. 149. Testimony of experts as to the result of experiments is not to be lightly accepted. National Co. v. Belcher, 71 Fed. 876, 18 C. C. A. 375. Conflict of testimony see B6n6 v. Jeantet, 129 U. S. 683, 9 S. Ct. 428, 32 L. ed. 803. 20. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; National Cash-Register [XIII, C, 14, d] Co. v. Leland, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372; Lee v. Pillsbury, 49 Fed. 747. 21. See supra, IX, E. 22. Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 8 S. Ct. 399, 31 L. ed. 269; Corning v. Bur- den, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Richardson v. Campbell, 72 Fed. 525; Emerson v. Hogg, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440, 2 Blatchf. 1, Fish. Pat. Rep. 77. See supra, X, A, 5. 23. See supra, VI, F, 3. 24. Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S. 412, 7 S. Ct. 718, 30 L. ed. 712; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Jones v. Cyphers, 126 Fed. 753, 62 C. C. A. 21; Parsons v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 125 Fed. 386 [affirmed in 134 Fed. 394, 67 C. C. A. 392] ; Myers v. Brown, 102 Fed. 250, 42 C. C. A. 320; Uni- versal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 82 Fed. 228; Dayton Loop, etc., Co. v. Ruhl, 55 Fed. 649; Forschner v. Baumgarten, 26 Fed. 858; American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 315, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 353, Holmes 133, 2 Off. Gaz. 59; Middletown Tool Co. v. Judd, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,536, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Westlake V. Cartler, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,451, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 519, 4 Off. Gaz. 636. Evidence held insufficient to show sale of infringing article within district essential to give jurisdiction see Gray v. Grinberg, 147 Fed. 732 [affirmed in 159 Fed. 138]. 25. U.' S. Rev. St. (1878) 4908 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3390]; Stokes Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Heller, 56 Fed. 297; Dobson v. Graham, 49 Fed. 17. Other methods of performing the invention claimed in the patent are not protected as secret under U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4908 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 3390]. Dornan v. Reefer, 49 Fed. 462. Patent office rule of secrecy of application has been held not to apply in court. Dia- mond Match Co. v. Oshkosh Match Works, 63 Fed. 984. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1043 patent may be received in evidence in place of the originals. 26 A copy of a foreign patent certified by the commissioner of patents of the United States will be accepted as prima facie evidence of the fact of the granting of such patent and of the date and contents thereof. 27 The printed copies of specifications and drawings of patents deposited in the capitols of the various states and territories and certified by the commissioner of patents will be received as evidence of all matters therein contained. 28 i. Judicial Notice. Courts may properly take judicial notice of facts that may be regarded as part of the common knowledge of every person of ordinary understanding and intelligence. 29 The court is permitted to avail itself of com- mon knowledge in regard to matters of science, and by that knowledge to define the scope of the patent. 30 The court may take judicial notice of a thing in common use throughout the country. 31 The court may refer to dictionaries and encyclopedias for the definition and scope of scientific terms or names, when necessary to go outside of the record, or where the testimony of experts is con- flicting. 32 For the purpose of ascertaining the state of the art the court may take judicial notice of what is disclosed by its own records in a previous case involving devices appertaining to the same art. 33 The courts will not take judicial notice of patents or inventions. 84 15. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE. The issue of fraud in the reissue of a patent can only be raised by distinct and special allegations in the plea or answer. 35 The general rule that the proof and pleading must correspond applies to actions at law and suits in equity for infringement of patents. 36 In actions at law for 26. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 892 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 673]; Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 8 S. Ct. 399, 31 L. "ed. 269; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. ed. 683; Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Richardson v. Campbell, 72 Fed. 525; Emerson v. Hogg, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440, 2 Blatchf. 1, Fish. Pat. Rep. 77. Assignment of patent. That an assign- ment of a patent was recorded and is pro- duced and put in evidence by a subsequent assignee in a suit for infringement is suf- ficient evidence of its delivery. Shelby Steel Tube Co. v. Delaware Seamless Tube Co., 151 Fed. 64 [affirmed on other grounds in 160 Fed. 928]. 27. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 893 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 673]. Foreign patent may be proved by copy un- der seal of country. Galling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572; Schoerken V. Swift, 7 Fed. 469, 19 Blatchf. 209. 28. U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 894 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 673]. 29. Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L. ed. 532; King v. Gallum, 109 U. S. 99, 3 S. Ct. 85, 27 L. ed. 870. Of facts cited in encyclopedias, dictionaries, or other publications, judicial notice will not be taken unless they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444. 30. Knapp v. Benedict, 26 Fed. 627. 31. Black Diamond Coal-Min. Co. v. Excel- sior Coal Co., 156 U. S. 611, 15 S. Ct. 482, 39 L. ed. 553; Phillips v. Detroit, 116 U. S. 604, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L. ed. 532; King V. Gallun, 109 U. S. 99, 3 S. Ct. 85, 27 L. ed. 870; Slawson v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 107 U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 576; Ter- hune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592, 25 L. ed. 293 ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Root v. Sontag, 47 Fed. 309. Where the court has the slightest doubt that such was the fact, it will not take judi- cial notice that certain similar articles ex- hibited at the argument were in use before the date of the patent. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mosheim, 48 Fed. 452. 32. Panzl v. Battle Island Paper, etc., Co., 132 Fed. 607. 33. American Salesbook Co. v. Carter- Crume Co., 125 Fed. 499 [reversed in open court without opinion in 129 Fed. 1004, 62 C. C. A. 679] ; Cushman Paper-Box Mach. Co. v. Goddard, 95 Fed. 664, 37 C. C. A. 221. 34. American Salesbook Co. v. Carter- Grume Co., 125 Fed. 499 [reversed in open court without opinion in 129 Fed. 1004, 62 C. C. A. 679] ; Bottle Seal Co. v. De la Vergne Bottle, etc., Co., 47 Fed. 59. 35. Blake v. Stafford, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,504, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294. 36. New York Belting, etc., Co. V. New Jersey Car-Spring, etc., Co., 48 Fed. 556 [reversed on other grounds in 53 Fed. 810, 4 C. C. A. 21]; Allis v. Buckstaff, 13 Fed. 879; Roberts v. Buck, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,897, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 325, Holmes 224, 3 Off. Gaz. 268. The court cannot take notice of any proof concerning which there is not a corresponding allegation. Serls v. Bouton, 12 Fed. 140, 20 Blatchf. 426; Marks v. Fox, 6 Fed. 727, 18 Blatchf. 502 ; Howe v. Williams, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,778, 2 Cliff. 245, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395. [XIII, C, 15] [30 Cye.] PATENTS infringements of patents the defendant may, under the general issue, show the prior state of the art, 37 or that the patentee is not the original inventor, 38 or give in evidence the act of congress relating to his rights. 39 ^So too defendant may give evidence of the use of a machine by other persons in other places than those mentioned in a notice of special matter, where the general issue is pleaded. 40 An averment in a declaration in an action for infringement that disclaimers were duly and legally executed in writing and accepted by the commissioner is suffi- cient to enable plaintiff to give evidence of their execution as required by statute. 41 16. TRIALS IN ACTIONS AT LAW a. In General. The ordinary rules of practice and procedure in civil actions apply. 42 b. Questions For Court and Jury. It is for the court to instruct the jury as to the law, 43 and this includes a definition of the scope and meaning of the patent, 44 and it is for the jury to find the facts and apply the law as expounded. 45 Slightest variance fatal. When a decla- ration in an action for the infringement of a patent right professes to set forth the speci- fication in the patent as part of the grant, the slightest variance is fatal. Tryon v. White, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,208, Pet. C. C. 96, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 64. 37. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200. 38. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68, holding further that, where the general issue is pleaded, there is no limitation of the period in which defendant may show that the pat- entee is not the original inventor. 39. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 303, 4 Wash. 9. 40. Evans v. Eaton, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559, Pet. C. C. 322, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 68. 41. Van Hook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,854. 42. Exception as to defense under U. S. Rev. St. (1878) 4920; McClurg v. Kings- land, 1 How. (U. S.) 202, 11 L. ed. 102. Setting aside verdict see Aiken v. Bemis, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 109, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 644, 3 Woodb. & M. 348; Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turning Factory v. Jacobs, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,520, 2 Blatchf. 69, Fish. Pat. Rep. 158. Motion to withdraw jury for surprise see Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, 1 Blatchf. 445, Fish. Pat. Rep. 268. Feigned issue awarded see Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,918, 1 Blatchf. 545, Fish. Pat. Rep. 357. Objections and exceptions. Objection to evidence must be seasonably made (Pettibone V. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 134 Fed. 889; Brown v. Hall, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,008, 6 Blatchf. 401, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Lock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,438), and must be definite ( Barker v . Stowe, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 994, 3 Ban. & A. 337, 15 Blatchf. 49, 14 Off. Gaz. 559). Exceptions must also be taken seasonably. Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, 1 Blatchf. 445, Fish. Pat. Rep. 268 [affirmed in 14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394]. Records and exhibits. The court may or- der the production of records and exhibits (Diamond Match Co. v. Oshkosh Match Works, 63 Fed. 984; Johnson Steel Street- [XIII, C, 15] Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. 191; Wisner v. Dodds, 14 Fed. 655), but it will not order the filing of an ink copy of exhibit (Tubman v. Wason Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 429). Experiments. The court will not order de- fendant to conduct his experiments in the presence of plaintiff's witnesses. Simonds Rollmg-Mach. Co. v. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. 490. Witness ordered to answer certain ques- tions see Coop v. Dr. Savage Physical Devel- opment Inst., 48 Fed. 239, 47 Fed. 899 ; Dela- mater v. Reinhardt, 43 Fed. 76; Turrell v. Spaeth, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,267, 2 Ban. & A. 185, 8 Off. Gaz. 986. Infringement is a question for the jury. Clark v. Adie, 2 App. Cas. 315, 46 L. J. Ch. 585, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 923; Macnamara r. Hulse, C. & M. 471, 41 E. C. L. 258; De la Rue v. Dickenson, 7 E. & B. 738, 3 Jur. N. S. 841, 5 Wkly. Rep. 754, 90 E. C. L. 738; Seed v. Higgins, 8 H. L. Cas. 550, 6 Jur. N. S. 1264, 30 L. J. Q. B. 314, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 101, 11 Eng. Reprint 544. 43. Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263; Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737; Many v. Jagger, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,055, 1 Blatchf. 372, Fish. Pat. Rep. 222; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Hill r. Evans, 4 De G. F. & J. 288, 8 Jur. N. S. 525, 31 L. J. Ch. 457, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 90, 65 Eng. Ch. 223, 45 Eng. Reprint 1195. 44. Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263 ; Marsh v. Quick-Meal Stove Co., 51 Fed. 203; National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Regulator Co. v. Copeland, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Bovil v. Plimm, 11 Exch. 718; Seed v. Higgins, 8 H. L. Cas. 550, 6 Jur. N. S. 1264, 30 L. J. Q. B. 314, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 101, 11 Eng. Reprint 544. Until the evidence is in the court may re- fuse to construe the patent. Young v. Fermie, 4 Giffard 577, 10 Jur. N. S. 926, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 861, 4 New* Rep. 218, 12 Wkly. Rep. 901, 66 Eng. Reprint 836. 45. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37 ; Foote v. Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, 1 Blatchf. 445, Fish. Pat. Rep. PATENTS [30 Cye.J 1045 The jury must determine the question of identity of the alleged infringing device, 46 the question of the validity of the patent, 47 and the amount of dam- ages. 48 In a clear case the court may direct the jury to bring in a verdict for defendant. 49 17. HEARING IN SUITS IN EQUITY a. Questions Determined. "Where defend- ant denies the infringement and avers that the alleged infringing article was made under a later patent than that sued upon, the court may, in a plain case, determine the question of infringement by an inspection and comparison of the two patents. 50 The construction placed on the claims of a patent by the court on 268; Goodyear v. Bishop, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,559, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 154 ; Parker v. Stiles, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat. Rep. 319, 5 McLean 44; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279, 4 Blatchf. 493, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181. Expression of opinion. The court may ex- press opinion upon a fact which is clear. Bollmans v. Parry, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,612. 46. Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263; Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 20 L. ed. 515; Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 327, 19 L. ed. 93; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Fed. 652, 48 C. C. A. 588; Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737; May v. Fond du Lac County, 27 Fed. 691; Blanchard's Gun-Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521, 1 Blatchf. 258, Fish. Pat. Rep. 184; Matthews v. Skates, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602; Parker v. Stiles, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749, Fish. Pat, Rep, 319, 5 McLean 44; Pennock v. Dialogue, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 466, 4 Wash. 538 [affirmed in 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327] ; Smith v. Higgins, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,058; Tatham v. Le Roy, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,761. On demurrer to evidence court may instruct jury to find for defendant. Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 28 Fed. 850. In a plain case the court may determine infringement by comparing article and patent. Connors v. Ormsby, 148 Fed. 13, 78 C. C. A. 181; Hardwick v. Masland, 71 Fed. 887; Jennings v. Kibbe, 10 Fed. 669, 20 Blatchf. 353. 47. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37: Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737; Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141, 2 Story 432; Sullivan v. Redfield, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,597, 1 Paine 441, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 477; Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,818, McAllister 17. Anticipation is a question for the jury. Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. S. 25, 6 S. Ct. 974, 30 L. ed. 54; Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 812, 19 L. ed. 829; Turrill v. Michi- rn, etc., R. Co., 1 Wall. (U. S.) 491, 17 ed. 668 ; Hunt Bros. Fruit Packing Co. v. Cassidy, 53 Fed. 257, 3 C. C. A. 525; Water- man v. Thomson, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,260, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461. In England anticipation by prior patents is for the court. Bush v. Fox, 5 H. L. Cas. 7D7, 2 Jur. N. S. 1029, 25 L. J. Exch. 251, 4 Wkly. Rep. 675, 10 Eng. Reprint 1080; Booth v. Kennard, 2 H. & N. 84, 26 L. J. Exch. 305, 5 Wkly. Rep. 607 ; Thomas v. Foxwell, 5 Jur. N. S. 37 [affirmed in 6 Jur. N. S. 271]. In- vention is a question for the jury. Willis v. Miller, 121 Fed. 985, 58 C. C. A. 286; San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Keating:, 68 Fed. 351, 15 C. C. A. 476. Sufficiency of description is a question for the jury. Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23 ; Reutgen v. Kanowrs, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,710, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Wash. 168. Abandonment is a question for the jury. Godfrey v. Eames, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 317, 17 L. ed. 684; Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165. Fraud is a question for the jury. Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. (U. S.) 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Reutgen v. Kanowrs, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,710, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Wash. 168. Reading to the jury the decision of another court as to validity is improper. Arey v. De Loriea, 55 Fed. 323, 5 C. C. A. 116. Where anticipated in patents the court may so instruct the jury. Market St. Cable R. Co. v. Rowley, 155 U. S. 621, 15 S. Ct. 224, 39 L. ed. 284. If a patent is void on its face, the court may so instruct. Roberts v. Bennett, 135 Fed. 193, 69 C. C. A. 533; Langdon v. De Groot, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,059, 1 Paine 203, I Robb Pat. Cas. 433. Sufficiency of description is a question for the jury. Bickford v. Skewes, 1 Q. B. 938, 1 G. & D. 736, 6 Jur. 167, 41 E. C. L. 848; Betts v. Menzies, 10 H. L. Cas. 117, 9 Jur. N. S. 29, 31 L. J. Q. B. 233, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 11 Wkly. Rep. 1, 11 Eng. Reprint 970. 48. National Car-Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car, etc., Co., 19 Fed. 514; Alden v. Dewey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 153, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 17, 1 Story 336; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217, 2 'Robb Pat. Cas. 530, 2 Woodb. & M. 121 ; Goodyear v. Bishop, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,559, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 154; Grant v. , 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,701 ; Johnson v. Root, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409, 2 Cliff. 108, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291; Stephens v. Felt, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,368, 2 Blatchf. 37, Fish. Pat. Rep. 144. 49. Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. S. 25, 6 S. Ct. 974, 30 L. ed. 54. 50. Hardwick v. Masland, 71 Fed. 887. Unless the character of the invention has so little complexity that expert evidence is not necessary to aid the court in understand- ing whether one patent, or several patents considered together, describe the devices or combination of devices which are the subject- [XIII, C, 17, a] 1046 [30 Cye.] PATENTS granting a preliminary injunction should be followed at the final hearing, where there has been no substantial change in the cause so far as it relates to the ques- tion of construction. 51 The court will not determine a moot question at the final hearing, as where no infringement is found the court will not pass upon the question of the novelty of a patented invention. 52 Where the patent is recent, the specification obscure, and the proof of infringement meager and unsatisfactory, the court will not grant an injunction, even upon a final hearing, but will retain the bill for a certain period and require complainant to bring an action at law, in which case the bill will stand dismissed, unless the action at law is brought within the time limited. 53 b. Submission of Issues to Jury. The circuit court may impanel a jury of not less than five and not more than twelve persons and submit to them such questions of fact arising in the cause as the court shall deem expedient. 54 e. Reception of Evidence. Documentary evidence set forth in defendant's answer will not be received after the cause has been submitted upon plaintiff's evidence; 55 but it has been held that, where it is an important point in the defense that a reissued patent is broader in its scope than the original, the case will be reopened to enable defendant to introduce testimony tending to show that fact, it being alleged that such testimony is newly discovered. 56 The court will not, on complainant's motion, compel defendant to file an exhibit in a form different from that already filed by him. 57 Complainant is entitled as a matter of right to introduce evidence in rebuttal, 58 but not after the argument has corn- matter of the subsequent patent, the court will examine a large number of patents prior in date to that of complainant, which patents have been offered in evidence to sustain the defense of want of novelty. Waterman v. Shipman, 55 Fed. 982, 5 C. C. A. 371. In a suit upon design patents, the absence of evidence of identity does not make it im- proper for the court to compare such patent and the alleged infringing articles offered in evidence, the designs being of a simple character. Jennings v. Kibbe, 10 Fed. 669, 29 Blatchf. 353. 51. Sessions v. Gould, 60 Fed. 753 [affirmed in 63 Fed. 1001, 11 C. C. A. 546, 550]. 52. Saxe v. Hammond, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,411, 1 Ban. & A. 629, Holmes 456, 7 Off. Ga/. 781. 53. Muscan Hair Mfg. Co. v. American Hair Mfg. Co., 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,970, 4 Blatchf. 174, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 320. 54. Act Feb. 16, 1875, 18 U. S. St. at L. 316 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 526]; Watt v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247, 25 L. ed. 826. In case of doubt the court may in its discretion award an issue to be tried by jury. Gray v. Halkyard, 28 Fed. 854; Allen v. Sprague, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 238, 1 Blatchf. 567, Fish. Pat. Rep. 388; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Parker v. Hatfield, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,736, Fish. Pat. Rep. 94, 4 McLean 61; Sides v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,842; Van Hook v. Pendleton, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,851, 1 Blatchf. 187, Fish. Pat. Rep. 120. That an issue to be tried by jury not granted at the mere request of a party see Brooks v. Norcross, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,957, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 661; Goodyear v. Day, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,566. Issue for jury refused see Buchanan v. Howland, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,074, 5 Blatchf. [XIII, C, 17, a] 151, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 341; Ely v. Monson, etc., Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,431, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64. Court may order trial at law see Booth y. Garelly, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,646, 1 Blatchf. 247, Fish. Pat. Rep. 154; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944, 3 McLean 250, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Bryan v. Stevens, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,066a. English practice. Court may in its discre- tion direct issue of fact to be tried by jury. Bovill v. Hitchcock, L. R. 3 Ch. 417, 37 L. J. Ch. 223, 16 Wkly. Rep. 321; Davenport v. Goldberg, 2 Hem. & M. 282, 5 New Rep. 484, 71 Eng. Reprint 472. In the absence of special circumstances the issues will be tried before the court and not before a jury. Patent Mar. Invention Co. v. Chad- burn, L. R. 16 Eq. 447, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 614, 21 Wkly. Rep. 745. 55. Peterson v. Simpkins, 25 Fed. 486. 56. Johnson v. Beard, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,371, 2 Ban. & A. 50, 8 Off. Gaz. 435. 57. Tubman v. Wason Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 429, where the complainant moved that the court order defendant to file an ink drawing of an exhibit which was already on file in pencil, and the court held that such an order would be improper, counsel for defendant having a right, at defendant's risk, to offer an exhibit in one form or another. 58. Cahoon v. Ring, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292, 1 Cliff. 592, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 397, holding, however, that the fresh evidence which may be introduced is limited strictly to rebutting evidence, and hence evidence of any experi- ments upon the machine in question cannot be introduced by plaintiff in his rebutting testimony. On the ground of surprise leave may be granted to complainant to introduce evi- dence in rebuttal. Pouopard v. Fardell, 18 PATENTS [30Cye.] 1047 menced. 59 Under a general denial of the patentee's priority of invention, evi- dence of prior knowledge and use, taken without objection, is competent at the final hearing, not only as demonstrative of the state of the art, so as to limit the construction of the patent, 60 but also on the question of the validity of the patent. 61 So too where an objection was not distinctly made when the evidence was taken such evidence is deemed waived and is competent at the final hearing. 62 d. Dismissal (i) AT WHAT STAGE OF CAUSE ALLOWABLE. The court may, in its discretion, permit defendant at the close of complainant's proofs to present by a motion to dismiss a jurisdictional question, 63 or a question of the legal sufficiency of the proof of title to the patent, 64 without requiring defendant to abide by the case as then made in the event that his motion shall be overruled. (n) GROUNDS. The bill will be dismissed, 65 without regard to the answer, 66 where it appears that letters patent are void on their face because the process or device described therein is not patentable. That defendant has, by his action in selling his alleged patent, necessarily abandoned his intention to infringe is no sufficient ground, after the testimony has been taken, for dismissing the bill and remanding plaintiff to his remedy at law. 67 If a suit commenced to restrain from infringing letters patent and to recover profits and damages be begun so late that under the rules of the court no injunction can be obtained before the expi- ration of the patent, the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 68 (in) DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Where the alleged infringement has been disproved, an application for dismissal without prejudice, as to one of the defendants, will be denied. 69 (iv) OPERATION AND EFFECT. Dismissal of the bill for failure to show an infringement does not estop plaintiff or his assigns from again suing the same defendant for infringing the same patent. 70 18. INTERLOCUTORY DECREE AND ACCOUNTING a. Interlocutory Decree. Where the finding is in favor of the validity and infringement of the patent, an inter- locutory decree for the complainant is entered and the cause is referred to a master to ascertain the amount to be recovered. 71 Wkly. Rep. 59. See also Penn v. Jack, L. R. Storage, etc., Co., 153 Fed. 181, 82 C. C. A. 2 Eq. 314, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 495, 14 Wkly. 355 [affirming 147 Fed. 525]. Rep. 760. 66. Slawson v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 107 59. Stainthorp v. Humiston, 22 Fed. Cas. U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 576; Brown No. 13,281, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107, holding, v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Conder- however, that where defendant relies on de- man v. Clements, 147 Fed. 915, 78 C. C. A. fenses other than the alienage of complainant, 51; Quirolo v. Ardito, 1 Fed. 610, 17 Blatchf. the latter may introduce evidence to rebut 400. proof that he was not an alien, upon pay- 67. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. ment of all costs incurred by defendant in American Buckle, etc., Co., 54 Fed. 703. proving the alienage of complainant. 68. Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 7 60. Zane v. Soffe, 110 U. S. 200, 3 S. Ct. S. Ct. 217, 30 L. ed. 392, holding, however, 562, 28 L. ed. 119. that where the suit is begun in such time 61. Zane v. Soffe, 110 U. S. 200, 3 S. Ct. that an injunction can be obtained before 562, 28 L. ed. 119; Webster Loom Co. v. the expiration of the patent, although only Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 1177. three days remain for it to run, it is within 62. Barker v. Stowe, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 994, the discretion of the court to take juris- 3 Ban. & A. 337, 15 Blatchf. 49, 14 Off. Gaz. diction; and if it does, it may, without en- 559. joining defendant, proceed to grant the other 63. Streat v. American Rubber Co., 115 incidental relief asked for. Fed. 634. 69. Archer v. Arnd, 31 Fed. 475 [affirmed 64. De Laval Separator Co. v. Vermont in 140 U. S. 668, 11 S. Ct. 1015, 35 L. ed. Farm-Mach. Co., 109 Fed. 813. 599]. 65. Slawson v. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 107 70. Steam-Gauge, etc., Co. v. Meyrose, 27 U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 576; Brown Fed. 213. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. 200; Quirolo 71. Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic v. Ardito, 1 Fed. 610, 17 Blatchf. 400; Passaic Tool Co., 130 Fed. 903; Campbell Printing- Zinc Co. D. Spear, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,789. Press, etc., Co. v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 Fed. See also Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592, 930; Whitney v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 48 Fed. 25 L. ed. 293; Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U. S. 444; Andrews v. Creegan, 7 Fed. 477, 19 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Wills v. Scranton Cold Blatchf. 113; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Fed. Cas. No. [XIII, C, 18, a] 1048 [30 Cye.] PATENTS b. Proceedings in Accounting 1 . The authority of the master and the pro- ceedings before him are controlled by the ordinary rules of equity practice. 72 On 215, 1 Blatchf. 480, Fish. Pat. Rep. 303, 8 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 105; Bullock Printing-Press Co. v. Jones, 4 Fed. Gas. No. 2,132, 3 Ban. & A. 195, 13 Off. Gaz. 124; Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,397, 3 Cliff. 356, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90, 1 Off. Gaz. 91. For form of interlocutory decree see Provi- dence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 788, 19 L. ed. 566. Decree held too broad see Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 22 L. ed. 577; Creamer v. Bowers, 30 Fed. 185. Time after complainant has sold his patent cannot be included in accounting. Goss Print- ing Press Co. v. Scott, 134 Fed. 880. De- fendant is the only party accounting within the meaning of equity rule 79. Goss Print- ing Press Co. v. Scott, 148 Fed. 393. Construction of particular decree see New York Grape Sugar Co. v. American Grape Sugar Co., 42 Fed. 455. Where the decree is reversed the testimony may be used in a subsequent accounting. Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. 504, 1 L. R. A. 48. Further report. The case may be referred back to master for further report. Ruggles v. Eddy, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,116, 2 Ban. & A. 627, 12 Off. Gaz. 716; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,593, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141. On exceptions to the master's re- port, a former decision in the case as to the rule of damages must be followed. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 39 Fed. 462. Compliance with interlocutory order to keep an account see Wilder v. Gayler, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,648, 1 Blatchf. 511, Fish. Pat. Rep. 317. Where damages are trivial, the case will not be referred to a master. Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co., 105 Fed. 63. Where no infringement is shown, the suit will be dismissed. American Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 322, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 316; Saxe v. Hammond, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,411, 1 Ban. & A. 629, Holmes 456, 7 Off. Gaz. 781. A request for dismissal without prejudice will be refused where infringement is dis- proved. Archer v. Arnd, 31 Fed. 475 [af- firmed in 140 U. S. 668, 11 S. Ct. 1015, 35 L. ed. 599]. Moot questions will not be decided. Sprague Electric R., etc., Co. v. Steel Motor Co., 105 Fed. 959. After interlocutory decree court will not advise parties whether different article in- fringes. Thomas, etc., Co. v. Electric Porce- lain Co., 114 Fed. 407. English practice. An account will be re- fused where it is clear that there were no profits. Bergmann v. Macmillan, 17 Ch. D. 423, 44 L. T. Rep. N. S. 794, 29 Wkly. Rep. 890. An account where complicated may be by inquiry in chambers. Betas r. De Vitre, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 533, 5 New Rep. 165. De- fendant may be ordered to permit inspection [XIII, 1 C, 18, b] of factorv and machines. Garrard v. Edge, 58 L. J. Ch. 397, 60 L. T. Rep. N. S. 557, 37 Wkly. Rep. 501; Germ Milling Co. v. Robin- son, 55 L. J. Ch. 287, 53 L. T. Rep. N. S. 696, 34 Wkly. Rep. 194; Jones v. Lee, 25 L. J. Exch. 241; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 140, 5 New Rep. 505, 13 Wkly. Rep. 560. Form of order for inspec- tion. Davenport v. Jepson, 1 New Rep. 307. 72. Mode of procedure. The master ap- points a day for proceeding with the refer- ence, and gives notice, by mail or otherwise, to the parties or their solicitors. The so- licitor should be notified, whether the party is or not; although, probably, under rule 75, notice to the party is a good notice. If defendant does not appear, the master pro- ceeds ex parte and makes out the profits and damages, if he can, from the evidence produced by plaintiff. If it appears that an account of 'profits is necessary to a just de- cision of the cause, and is desired by plain- tiff, he makes an order that defendant fur- nish an account by a certain day, and ad- journs the hearing to that day. Defendant should be served personally with a notice of this adjournment, and of the order to pro- duce his account, if it is intended to move for an attachment in case he fails to appear. The service may be made by any disinter- ested person, and need not be by the marshal. If defendant then fails to appear and ac- count, he will be in contempt. Kerosene Lamp-Heater Co. v. Fisher, 1 Fed. 91. Damages and profits. The master deter- mines damages and profits. Reedy v. West- ern Electric Co., 83 Fed. 709, 28 C. C. A. 27 [affirming 66 Fed. 163] ; Rumford Chemi- cal Works v. Hecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,134, 2 Ban. & A. 386, 11 Off. Gaz. 330; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,272, 5 Biss. 344 [reversed in part in 94 U. S. 695, 24 L. ed. 238]. The master should take an account to the time of his report and if defendant has changed his machine should determine if the new machine is substantially like the old one. Hoe v. Scott, 87 Fed. 220; Knox v. Great Western Quicksilver Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,907, 4 Ban. & A. 25, 7 Reporter 325, 6 Sawy. 430, 14 Off. Gaz. 897; Tatham v. Lowber, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,765, 4 Blatclif. 86 [reversed on other grounds in 22 How. 132, 16 L. ed. 366]. The liability of each defendant should be determined. Herring v. Gage, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,422, 3 Ban. & A. 396, 15 Blatchf. 124; Tatham v. Lowber, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,765, 4 Blatchf. 86. Determination of cost of manufacture see Mast v. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed. 45, 83 C. C. A. 157. The questions of validity and infringement are not open before the master. Skinner v. Vulcan Iron-Works, 39 Fed. 870; Cellu- loid Mfg. Co. 1?. Comstock, etc., Co., 27 Fed. PATENTS [30 Gye.] 1049 an account before a master for damages for infringement of a patent, evidence of license contracts made between complainant and other responsible parties, by which they were to pay a royalty for the use of the patented device, is admis- sible. 73 He is bound by the terms of the interlocutory decree. 74 19. COSTS 73 a. In Actions at Law. The ordinary rule as to costs prevails, 76 except as affected by delay in tiling a disclaimer. 77 358; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,272, 5 Biss. 344; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,594, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207. Compare Walker Patent Pivoted Bin Co. v. Miller, 146 Fed. 249. Proof of damages. Master not called upon to suggest how profits and damages may be proved. Garretson v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,250, 4 Ban. & A. 536, 16 Off. Gaz. 806. Report of oral evidence. Master not re- quired to report oral evidence unless re- quested at the time. Hammacher v. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796. Where evidence is introduced both as to damages and profits, it is proper for the master to report his findings and conclusions upon each line of evidence separately. Mast v. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed. 45, 83 C. C. A. 157. Where the master by his rulings limits the scope of the inquiry, the matter may properly be presented to the court for decision by a motion for instructions to the master. Wal- ker Patent Pivoted Bin Co. v. Miller, 146 Fed. 249. Burden of proof. The burden is on the complainant to show affirmatively the amount of profits. Mosher v. Joyce, 51 Fed. 441, 2 C. C. A. 322 [affirming 45 Fed. 205]; Ham- macher v. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796; Black v. Munson, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,463, 2 Ban. & A. 623, 14 Blatchf. 265 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 122, 4 S. Ct. 326, 28 L. ed. 372] ; Webstor v. New Brunswick Carpet Co., 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,338, 2 Ban. & A. 67, 9 Off. Gaz. 203. Circumstances may place the burden on de- fendant of showing what part of profits not due to patented part. Cimiotti Unhair- ing Co. 17. Bowsky, 113 Fed. 698; American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 309, 1 Ban. & A. 439, 6 Off. Gaz. 764 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000]. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence that other devices were capable of use is incom- petent. American Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 309, 1 Ban. & A. 439, 6 Off. Gaz. 764 [modified in 97 U. S. 126, 24 L. ed. 1000]. Evidence as to cost of manufacture is admissible. Mast v. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed. 45, 83 C. C. A. 157. 73. Mast v. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed. 45, 83 C. C. A. 157. Evidence as to the compara- tive profits of the patented and similar de- vices may be competent. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 39 Fed. 462; Black v. Thome, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,466, 1 Ban. & A. 155, 12 Blatchf. 20, 7 Off. Gaz. 176; Garretson v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,250, 4 Ban. & A. 536, 16 Off. Gaz. 806. Weight of evidence. Rulings of master as to the weight of evidence not disturbed where reasonable. Welling v. La Bau, 35 Fed. 301; Creamer v. Bowers, 35 Fed. 206; Welling v. La Bau, 34 Fed. 40; Hammacher v. Wilson, 32 Fed. 796; Wooster v. Thorn, ton, 26 Fed. 274 [affirmed in 136 U. S. 651, 10 S. Ct. 1074, 34 L. ed. 550]; Piper v. Brown, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,181, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 240, Holmes 196, 3 Off. Gaz. 97. Setting up alleged new infringements by supplemental bill see Murray v. Orr, etc., Hardware Co., 153 Fed. 369, 82 C. C. A. 445. Setting aside. The master's report may be set aside for manifest error of law or fact. Greenleaf v. Yale Lock Mfg. Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,783, 4 Ban. & A. 583, 17 Blatchf. 253, 17 Off. Gaz. 625; Steam Stonecutter Co. v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,335, 4 Ban. & A. 445, 17 Blatchf. 24. Recommitting case. The case may be re- committed for specific findings. Webster Loom Co. 17. Higgins, 43 Fed. 673. It will not be recommitted for immaterial error. Zane v. Peck, 13 Fed. 475. Exceptions. Exceptions overruled where error is not pointed out. Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,272, 5 Biss. 344 [reversed in part in 94 U. S. 695, 24 L. ed. 238], Exceptions overruled and order for recount refused. Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. 169; Morss v. Union Form Co., 39 Fed. 468; Garretson v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,248, 3 Ban. & A. 352, 15 Blatchf. 70, 14 Off. Gaz. 485 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 120, 4 S. Ct. 291, 28 L. ed. 371]. English practice. In accounting before master the court may make an order for dis- covery and the production of defendant's books. Saccharin Corp. v. Chemicals, etc., Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 556, 69 L. J. Ch. 820, 83 L. T. Rep. N. S. 206, 49 Wkly. Rep. 1 ; Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 7 Exch. 207, 41 L. J. Exch. 113, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 439, 20 Wkly. Rep. 751. Question of validity is not in issue. Clark v. Adie, 3 Ch. D. 134, 45 L. J. Ch. 228, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 349, 24 Wkly. Rep. 1107 [affirmed in 2 App. Cas. 423, 46 L. J. Ch. 598, 37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 25 Wkly. Rep. 45]. 74. Hoe 17. Scott, 87 Fed. 220; Skinner v. Vulcan Iron Works, 39 Fed. 870; Turrill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,272, 5 Biss. 344; Whitney v. Mowry, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,594, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207; Williams 17. Leonard, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,726, 9 Blatchf. 476, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 381. 75. See, generally, COSTS. 76. Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., 93 Fed. 809; Kneass t7. Schuylkill Bank, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,876, Fish. Pat. Rep. 1, 4 Wash. 106; Merchant v. Lewis, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,437, 1 Bond 172. See infra, XIII, C, 19, b. 77. Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 12 S. Ct. 799, 36 L. ed. 609; Dunbar 17. Meyers, [XIII, C, 19, a] 1050 [30 Cye.] PATENTS b. In Suits in Equity. In infringement suits costs are awarded to the success- ful party unless there are special circumstances which render this unjust. 78 Where some of the claims sued on are void, costs for the complainant are usually refused, although the decree is in his favor upon other claims. 79 Costs may be divided in 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 112, 22 L. ed. 566; Peek v. Frame, 19 Fed. Gas. No. 10,904, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 211. Copies of patents are not part of costs. Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. 754; Wooster t>. Handy, 23 Fed. 49, 23 Blatchf. 112; Wood- ruff v. Barney, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,986, 1 Bond 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 244. 78. See, generally, COSTS, 11 Cyc. 1. Costs to successful party refused under special circumstances. Green v. Lynn, 81 Fed. 387; Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Whittall, 71 Fed. 515; Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 412; Marks Ad- justable Folding Chair Co. v. Wilson, 43 Fed. 302; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 23 Fed. 183; Tyler v. Galloway, 13 Fed. 477, 21 Blatchf. 66 ; American Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 322, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 316; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946, 5 Blatchf. 134, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362 ; Prime v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,421, 4 Ban. & A. 379, 16 Blatchf. 453; Smith v. Wood- ruff, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,128a, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 476. Recovery of nominal damages. Where nominal damages only are found, cost of ref- erence to master taxed against complainant. Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 127 Fed. 363 ; Hill v. Smith, 32 Fed. 753 ; Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 31 Fed. 742; Kirby v. Armstrong, 5 Fed. 801, 10 Biss. 135. Compare Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. 755, 10 Biss. 445, holding that where nominal dam- ages only are allowed the taxation of costs depends on circumstances. Unnecessary costs. No costs unnecessarily accumulated will be allowed. Brunswick- Balke-Collender Co. v. Klump, 131 Fed. 93; Ford v. Kurtz, 12 Fed. 789, 11 Biss. 324. Where the decree drawn by the successful party is not in accordance with the judg- ment, no costs can be allowed him on appeal. Hatch Storage Battery Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 100 Fed. 975, 41 C. C. A. 133; Shute v. Morley Sewing Mach. Co., 64 Fed. 368, 12 C. C. A. 356. Expense of accounting. Defendant must bear the expense of accounting in the first instance. Urner v. Kayton, 17 Fed. 539, 21 Blatchf. 428. Compensation of master. In Massachu- setts plaintiff must pay master's compensa- tion in the first instance to be recovered as costs. Macdonald v. Shepard, 10 Fed. 919. Prior to entry of decree taxing costs, each party pays his own costs. U. S. Printing Co. v. American Playing-Card Co., 81 Fed. 506. Where an execution for costs is returned unsatisfied, a receiver will not be appointed to take possession of the patent. Thayer v. Hart, 24 Fed. 558, 23 Blatchf. 303. English practice. No costs are allowed un- [XIII, C, 19, b] less the judge certifies that particulars are proved. Wilcox v. Janes, [1897] 2 Ch. 71, 66 L. J. Ch. 525, 45 Wkly. Rep. 474; Long- bottom v. Shaw, 43 Ch. D. 46, 58 L. J. Ch. 734, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 325, 37 Wkly. Rep. 792; Honiball v. Bloomer, 3 C. L. R. 167, 10 Exch. 538, 1 Jur. N. S. 188, 24 L. J. Exch. 11, 3 Wkly. Rep. 71; Gillett v. Wilby, 9 C. & P. 334, 38 E. C. L. 201 ; Needham v. Oxley, 8 L. T. Rep. N. S. 604, 2 New Rep. 388, 11 Wkly. Rep. 852. A party is not en- titled to costs on issues decided against him. Phillips v. Ivel Cycle Co., 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 392. Division of costs see Losche v. Hague, 7 Dowl. P. C. 495, 3 Jur. 409, 8 L. J. Exch. 251, 5 M. & W. 387. A certificate that par- ticulars of objection were proved or were reasonable may be given by appellate court. Cole v. Saqui, 40 Ch. D. 132, 58 L. J. Ch. 237, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 877, 37 Wkly. Rep. 109; Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson, 55 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282. A certificate is necessary only where there was an actual trial and not where suit was discontinued. Curtis v. Platt, 16 C. B. N. S. 465, 10 Jur. N. S. 823, 33 L. J. C. P. 255, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 383, 111 E. C. L. 465; Greaves v. Eastern R. Co., 1 E. & E. 961, 5 Jur. N. S. 733, 28 L. J. Q. B. 290, 7 Wkly. Rep. 453, 102 E. C. L. 961. Cer- tificate that the validity of the patent came in question see Gillett v. Green, 9 Dowl. P. C. 219, 10 L. J. Exch. 124, 7 M. & W. 347; Haslem Co. v. Hall, 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 1, 23; American Steel, etc., Co. v. Glover, 50 Wkly. Rep. 284. No certificate that validity came in question will be given for defendant. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Levinstein, 29 Ch. D. 366, 53 L. T. Rep. N. S. 750. Cer- tificate refused see Wilcox v. Janes, [1897] 2 Ch. 71, 66 L. J. Ch. 525, 45 Wkly. Rep. 474; Longbottom v. Shaw, 43 Ch. D. 46, 58 L. J. Ch. 734, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 325, 37 Wkly. Rep. 792; United Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 21 Ch. D. 720, 51 L. J. Ch. 705, 46 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620, 30 Wkly. Rep. 724; Bovill v. Hadley, 17 C. B. N. S. 435, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 650, 112 E. C. L. 435; Stocker v. Rodgers, 1 C. & K. 99, 47 E. C. L. 99. Cost on amendment see Edison Tel. Co. v. India Rubber Co., 17 Ch. D. 137, 29 Wkly. Rep. 496; Penn v. Bebby, L. R. 1 Eq. 548. Case may be continued to settle costs. Geary v. Norton, 1 De G. & Sm. 9, 63 Eng. Reprint 949. Canadian practice. Treble costs may be allowed in Canada. Huntingdon v. Lutz, 10 Can. L. J. 46; Hunter v. Carrick, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 489. 79. Metallic Extraction Co. v. Brown, 110 Fed. 665, 49 C. C. A. 147; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 71 Fed. 886; Stewart v. Mahoney, 5 Fed. 302; Yale, etc., Mfg. Co. v. North, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,123, 5 Blatchf. 455, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 279. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1051 the discretion of the court. 80 The ordinary rules as to what constitute taxable costs apply. 81 They do not include copies of patents, record, and exhibit models. 82 20. APPEAL AND ERROR 83 a. In Actions at Law. Any final judgment at law in a patent suit may be reviewed by the circuit court of appeal by writ of error, 84 but the judgment of the court of appeals in patent matters is final and not reviewable by the supreme court except by certification by the court of appeals or by writ of certiorari from the supreme court. 85 b. In Suits in Equity (i) FINAL DEGREE. An appeal may be taken to the circuit court of appeals from any final decree in a patent suit if taken within six months after the entry of the decree. 86 (n) INTERLOCUTORY DECREE. An appeal may be taken to the court of Compare Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, 29 Fed. 288, where one patent void, costs divided. Disclaimer. No costs will be allowed un- less proper disclaimer was filed before suit. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. ed. 601; General Electric Co. v. Crouse- Hinds Electric Co., 147 Fed. 718; Fairbanks v. Stickney, 123 Fed. 79, 59 C. C. A. 209; Worden v. Searls, 21 Fed. 406; Munday v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. 191; Proctor v. Brill, 16 Fed. 791; Sharp v. Tift, 2 Fed. 697, 18 Blatchf. 132; Aiken v. Dolan, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 110, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197; Christman v. Rumsey, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,704, 4 Ban. & A. 506, 17 Blatchf. 148, 17 Off. Gaz. 903, 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 114; Myers v. Frame, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,991, 8 Blatchf. 446, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 493 ; Taylor v. Archer, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,778, 8 Blatchf. 315, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 449. The rule against costs without dis- claimer applies only to the claims in issue in the suit. National Electric Signaling Co. V. De Forest Wireless Tel. Co., 140 Fed. 449; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co., 77 Fed. 490, 23 C. C. A. 250; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. 509. The rule applies only to the lower court and not to the costs on appeal. Kahn v. Starrels, 136 Fed. 597, 69 C. C. A. 371. 80. Dobson v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 S. Ct. 945, 29 L. ed. 177 Ire- versing 10 Fed. 3851 ; Ide v. Trorlicht, etc., Carpet Co., 115 Fed. 137, 53 C. C. A. 341; Brill v. Delaware County, etc., R. Co., 109 Fed. 901; Tesla Electric Co. v. Scott, 101 Fed. 524; Fisk v. West Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,830a, 19 Off. Gaz. 545; Garret-son v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,250, 4 Ban. & A. 536, 16 Off. Gaz. 806, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,248, 3 Ban. & A. 352, 15 Blatchf. 70, 14 Off. Gaz. 485 [affirmed in 111 U. S. 120, 4 S. Ct. 291, 28 L. ed. 371]; Troy Iron, etc., Factory Co. v. Corning, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,198, 10 Blatchf. 223, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 85. 81. Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 26 L. ed. 54. The costs of the reference to the master for an account of profits and damages are assessed. Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 127 Fed. 363; Hill v. Smith, 32 Fed. 753; American Diamond Drill Co. v. Sulli- van, 32 Fed. 552, 23 Blatchf. 144; Everest t\ Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 31 Fed. 742; Kirby v. Armstrong, 5 Fed. 801, 10 Biss. 135. 82. Ordinary models are not taxable as costs. Cornelly v. Markwald, 24 Fed. 187, 23 Blatchf. 248; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. 49, 23 Blatchf. 112; Parker v. Bigler, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,726, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 285. Contra, Hathaway v. Roach, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,213, 2 Woodb. & M. 63. Model of plaintiff's patent may be taxable but not others. Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. 49, 23 Blatchf. 112; Hussey v. Bradley, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,946a, 5 Blatchf. 210; Wood- ruff i?. Barney, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,986, 1 Bond 528, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 244. Drawings exhibit is not taxable. Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. 49, 23 Blatchf. 112. Copies of patents are not taxed. Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. 754; Woodruff v. Barney, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,986, 1 Bond 528, 2 Fish, Pat. Cas. 244. Certified copy of file wrapper of plaintiff's patent is not allowed. Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. 754. English practice. Expense of model and scientific witnesses may be allowed. Batley v. Kynock, L. R. 20 Eq. 632, 44 L. J. Ch. 565, 33 L. T. Rep. N. S. 45. 83. See, generally, APPEAL AND ERROR. 84. Act March 3, 1891, 6, 26 U. S. St. at L. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 549]. Facts will not be reviewed. American Sales Book Co. v. Bullivant, 117 Fed. 255, 54 C. C. A. 287 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Brill, 54 Fed. 380, 4 C. C. A. 374. 85. Act March 3, 1891, 6, 26 U. S. St. at L. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 549]; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266, 13 S. Ct. 594, 37 L. ed. 445. 86. Act March 3, 1891, 6, 11, 26 U. S. St. at L. 828, 829 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) pp. 549, 552]. Final and interlocutory decrees distin- guished and authorities reviewed see Stand- ard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co., 76 Fed. 767, 22 C. C. A. 549. Evidence considered. Patents set up in the answer in a suit for infringement as a part of the prior art, printed and indexed in the record on appeal, and refe'rred to in the briefs, and in relation to which witnesses were examined, all without objection, will not be excluded from consideration by the ap- pellate court because they were not formally marked as exhibits by the examiner. Smyth [XIII, C, 20, b, (n)] 1052 [30 Cye.] PATENTS appeals from an interlocutory order or decree granting, continuing, or refusing to dissolve an injunction. 87 Such appeal must be taken within thirty days and is Mfg. Co. v. Sheridan, 149 Fed. 208, 79 C. C. A. 166. 87. Act March 3, 1891, 7, 26 U. S. St. at L. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 550]. A decree finding some of the claims of a patent valid and others invalid, awarding a perpetual injunction and referring the cause to a master to determine profits is, although termed an interlocutory decree, final to the extent that it will permit cross appeals. Chicago Wooden Ware Co. v. Miller Ladder Co., 133 Fed. 541, 66 C. C. A. 517. And see Lockwood v. Wickes, 75 Fed. 118, 21 C. C. A. 257; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 52 Fed. 337, 3 C. C. A. 103 ; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,661, 2 Ban. & A. 256, 9 Off. Gaz. 885, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 498. Contra, Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 112 Fed. 676, 50 C. C. A. 421; Marden v. Campbell Printing- Press, etc., Co., 67 Fed. 809, 15 C. C. A. 26. Who may appeal. Licensee who joins pat- entee with him as complainant may appeal without consent of patentee. Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Seattle, 117 Fed. 140, 55 C. C. A. 156. Appealable decisions. Overruling motion to dismiss as to one complainant is a final decision and appealable. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 51 Fed. 557, 2 C. C. A. 373. Award to complainant of part of fine imposed on defendant for contempt is appeal- able. Christensen Engineering Co. v. West- inghouse Air Brake Co., 135 Fed. 774, 68 C. C. A. 476. Appeal lies from an interlocu- tory decree granting a perpetual injunction and an account of damages. Richmond v. Atwood, 52 Fed. 10, 2 C. C. A. 596, 17 L. R. A. 615; Dudley E. Jones Co. v. Munger Improved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co., 50 Fed. 785, 1 C. C. A. 668. Refusal of a rehearing is not appealable. Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 51 Fed. 305, 2 C. C. A. 172. Refusal to permit disclaimer after decision is not appealable. Roemer v. Neumann, 132 U. S. 103, 10 S. Ct. 12, 33 L. ed. 277. An order vacating service of process is not a final decree. L. E. Water- man Co. v. Parker Pen Co., 107 Fed. 141, 46 C. C. A. 203. No appeal is allowed to settle costs. Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Mu- nicipal Signal Co., 77 Fed. 490, 23 C. C. A. 250. Alternative order granting injunction or requiring bond will not be reviewed on appeal. Union Blue-Flame Oil Stove Co. v. Silver, 128 Fed. 925, 63 C. C. A. 110; Steams- Roger Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 114 Fed. 939, 52 C. C. A. 559. Dismissal. One of several appellants can- not dismiss an appeal. Marsh v. Nichols, 120 U. S. 598, 7 S. Ct. 704, 30 L. ed. 796. New evidence cannot be introduced after appeal even by stipulation. F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. American Wellworks, 121 Fed. 76, 57 C. C. A. 330. Amendment. Where a decree dismissing a bill is affirmed permission to amend not al- [XIII, C, 20, b, (II)] lowed. Martin, etc., Cash-Carrier Co. i\ Mar- tin, 71 Fed. 519, 18 C. C. A. 234; American Bell Tel Co. v. U. S., 68 Fed. 542, 15 C. C. A. 569. Ruling on interlocutory appeal followed on appeal from final decree see Cimiotti Unhair- ing Co. v. Nearseal Unhairing Co., 123 Fed. 479, 59 C. C. A. 58. Questions considered on appeal. The court will not consider points not made below. Lane v. Levi, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 168. A pleading cannot be objected to as insuffi- cient for the first time on appeal. Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mellon, 58 Fed. 705, 7 C. C. A. 439. Refusal to increase damages will not be dis- turbed on appeal. Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L. ed. 658; Kiss- inger-Ison Co. v. Bradford Belting Co., 123 Fed. 91, 59 C. C. A. 221. An appeal on interlocutory decree raises no question as to damages recoverable. Metallic Extraction Co. v. Brown, 104 Fed. 345, 43 C. C. A. 568. The court will not consider patents on which injunction was refused. Diamond State Iron Co. v. Goldie, 84 Fed. 972, 28 C. C. A. 589. Scope of review and disposition of appeal. While the court may review the merits of the entire case upon the record before it and in a clear case may order the dismissal of the bill (Co-operating Merchants' Co. v. Hallock, 128 Fed. 596, 64 C. C. A. 104; Marden v. Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. 809, 15 C. C. A. 26; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co., 61 Fed. 208, 9 C. C. A. 450; Curtis v. Over- man Wheel Co., 58 Fed. 784, 7 C. C. A. 493; Consolidated Piedmont Cable Co. v. Pacific Cable R. Co., 58 Fed. 226, 7 C. C. A. 195 ; American Paper Pail, etc., Co. r. Na- tional Folding Box, etc., Co., 51 Fed. 229, 2 C. C. A. 165; Dudley E. Jones Co. v. Mun- ger Improved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co., 50 Fed. 785, 1 C. C. A. 668), on appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction the court of appeals will not review the merits of the entire case, but only whether the injunction was improvidently granted (Adam v. Fol- ger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. C. A. 540; Kilmer Mfg. Co. v. Griswold, 67 Fed. 1017, 15 C. C. A. 161 ; Jensen v. Norton, 64 Fed. 662, 12 C. C. A. 608; Hart V. Buckner, 54 Fed. 925, 5 C.. C. A. 1 ; Blount v. Societe Anonyme, etc., 53 Fed. 98, 3 C. C. A. 455; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 52 Fed. 337, 3 C. C. A. 103). An interlocutory order granting a preliminary injunction will not be reversed except where there was an abuse of dis- cretion. F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. American Wellworks, 121 Fed. 76, 57 C. C. A. 330; American Fur Refining Co. v. Cimiotti Un- hairing Co., 118 Fed. 838, 55 C. C. A. 513; Loew Filter Co. v. German-American Filter Co., 107 Fod. 949, 47 C. C. A. 94; Pacific Steam Whaling Co. v. Alaska Packers' Assoc., 100 Fed. 462, 40 C. C. A. 494; SocietS PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1053 given precedence in the appellate court. 88 Supersedeas on appeal will be granted only under special circumstances. 89 2 1 . REHEARING. The ordinary rules against rehearings except under exceptional circumstances are strictly applied in suits for infringement, 90 and the granting thereof rests in the discretion of the court. 91 Whether a rehearing will be granted depends on the facts of each case and the effect which the granting or refusal of the application will have on the rights of the parties respectively. 92 While under certain circumstances a rehearing may be granted upon discovery of new evi- dence, 93 it will not be granted upon discovery of new evidence which as far as appears was accessible and should have been produced originally, 94 nor where the new evidence is not clear and satisfactory and such as would have changed the decision. 95 As a condition .of granting a rehearing the court may require the Anoriyme, etc. v. Allen, 90 Fed. 815, 33 C. C. A. 282. Where the patent has expired, an appeal on an interlocutory decree granting an injunction will be dismissed. National Folding-Box, etc., Co. v. Robertson, 104 Fed. 552, 44 C. C. A. 29; Lockwood v. Wickes, 75 Fed. 118, 21 C. C. A. 257; Gamewell Fire- Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co., 61 Fed. 208, 9 C. C. A. 450. Questions con- sidered from the standpoint of the lower court and adjudications in other circuits sus- taining the patent have the same weight upon appeal as below. Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Hays, 100 Fed. 984; Consolidated Fast- ener Co. u. Littauer, 84 Fed. 164, 28 C. C. A. 133; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 712, 26 C. C. A. 107; Bresnahan v. Tripp Grant Leveller Co., 72 Fed. 920, 19 C. C. A. 237; Duplex Printing- Press Co. v. Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Mfg. Co., 69 Fed. 250, 16 C. C. A. 220 ; Ameri- can Paper Pail, etc., Co. v. National Folding Box, etc., Co., 51 Fed. 229, 2 C. C. A. 165. The court of appeals is not bound by ad- judications in other circuits relied on by court below. Stover Mfg. Co. v. Mast, 89 Fed. 333, 32 C. C. A. 231; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Hoosick R. Co., 82 Fed. 461, 27 C. C. A. 419. A finding as to the fact of infringement will not be disturbed where there is evidence in the record tending to show infringement. Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 10, 6 S. Ct. 946, 30 L. ed. 63. 88. Act March 3, 1891, 7, 26 U. S. St. at L. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 550]; Raymond v. Royal Baking-Powder Co., 76 Fed. 465, 22 C. C. A. 276. 89. Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 130 Fed. 903; Edison v. American Muto- scope Co., 110 Fed. 664 [reversed on other grounds in 114 Fed. 926, 52 C. C. A. 546]; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 78 Fed. 142 ; National Heeling-Mach. Co. v. Abbott, 77 Fed. 462. And see Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 3 Eq. 308, 36 L. J. Ch. 277, 15 Wkly. Rep. 192; Lister v. Leather, 3 Jur. N. S. 433, 5 Wkly. Rep. 550; Flower v. Lloyd, 36 L. T. Rep.*N. S. 444. Operation of supersedeas. An appeal with supersedeas does not operate as a license to continue infringement. Bissell Carpet- Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 C. C. A. 25. 90. In re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 73 Fed. 908, 20 C. C. A. Ill; Searls v. Worden, 11 Fed. 501. For cases in which rehearing granted see Campbell Printing-Press, etc., Co. v. Marden, 70 Fed. 339 ; Campbell v. New York, 36 Fed. 260; American Diamond Rock-Boring Co. v. Sheldons, 24 Fed. 374, 23 Blatchf. 286; Schneider v. Thill, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,4706, 5 Ban. & A. 595. 91. American Diamond Rock-Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. 870, 18 Blatchf. 50. After appeal, rehearing cannot be granted except by permission of the appellate court. In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263, 17 S. Ct. 520, 41 L. ed. 994 ; American Soda Fountain Co. V. Sample, 136 Fed. 857, 70 C. C. A. 415 [reversing 134 Fed. 402] ; Nutter v. Moss- berg, 118 Fed. 168. 92. Pittsburgh Reduction Co. v. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., 121 Fed. 556. 93. Diamond Drill, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 138 Fed. 833 (evidence not accessible by the use of diligence) ; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 110 Fed. 646 (evi- dence not accessible by the use of diligence) ; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 43 Fed. 673; Johnson v. Beard, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,371, 2 Ban. & A. 50, 8 Off. Gaz. 435 ; Holste v. Rob- ertson, 4 Ch. D. 9, 46 L. J. Ch. 1, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 457, 25 Wkly. Rep. 35; Wilson v. Gann, 23 Wkly. Rep. 546. 94. Panzl v. Battle Island Paper Co., 132 Fed. 607 [reversed on other grounds in 138 Fed. 48, 70 C. C. A. 474] ; Brill v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 125 Fed. 526; Bliss v. Reed, 113 Fed. 946; Municipal Signal Co. v. Na- tional Electrical Mfg. Co., 97 Fed. 810; New York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co., 62 Fed. 582; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 39 Fed. 490; New York Grape Sugar Co. v. American Grape Sugar Co., 35 Fed. 212; Burdsall v. Curran, 31 Fed. 918; Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 26 Fed. 318; Peterson v. Simpkins, 25 Fed. 486; Andrews v. Denslow, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 372, 2 Ban. & A. 587, 14 Blatchf. 182; De Florez v. Raynolds, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,743, 4 Ban. & A. 331, 16 Blatchf. 397; Nutter v. Rodgers, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,33. Laches bars the right to a rehearing. Nor- ton v. Walsh, 49 Fed. 769. 95. Sacks f. Brooks, 85 Fed. 970 ; Stuart v. St. Paul, 63 Fed. 644; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 27 Fed. 750; Ameri- [XIII, C, 21] 1054 [30 Cye.] PATENTS moving party to pay his opponent's counsel fee for the previous argument, 96 or give an undertaking to pay the expense of additional testimony. 97 D. Threats of Suit. Suit may be maintained by a manufacturer to enjoin a patentee from making baseless threats of suit for infringement against his customers, 98 but an injunction will not be granted where there is a reasonable doubt as to the propriety of defendant's actions. 99 E. Operation and Effect of Decision 1 1. IN GENERAL. The decision by a can Bell Tel. Co. v. People's Tel. Co., 25 Fed. 725 [affirmed in 126 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. ed. 863] ; Hayes v. Dayton, 20 Fed. 690; Robinson v. Sutter, 11 Fed. 798; Collins Co. v. Coes, 8 Fed. 517; Adair v. Thayer, 7 Fed. 920; Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,530, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 434; Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,540, 9 Blatchf. 550, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 537, 1 Off. Gaz. 633; Kerosene Lamp Co. v. Littell, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,723. 96. Hake v. Brown, 44 Fed. 283. 97. Underwood v. Gerber, 37 Fed. 796, 2 L. R. A. 357. 98. Columbia Nat. Sand Dredging Co. V. Miller, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245; Murjahn v. Hall, 119 Fed. 186; Farquhar Co. v. Na- tional Co., 102 Fed. 714, 42 C. C. A. 600, 49 L. R. A. 755; Computing Scale Co. v. National Computing Scale Co., 79 Fed. 962; Emack v. Kane, 34 Fed. 46. The action of a patentee in harassing purchasers with threats of litigation does not commend itself to a court of equity. American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Port Huron Fibre-Garment Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 516, 18 C. C. A. 670. English practice. Douglass v. Pintsch's Patent Lighting Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 176, 65 L. J. Ch. 919, 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 332, 45 Wkly. Rep. 108; Fenner v. Wilson, [1893] 2 Ch. 656, 62 L. T. Ch. 984, 3 Reports 629, 68 L. T. Rep. N. S. 748, 42 Wkly. Rep. 57; Johnson v. Edge, [1892] 2 Ch. 1, 61 L. J. Ch. 262, 66 L. T. Rep. N. S. 44, 40 Wkly. Rep. 437 ; Axmann v. Lund, L. R. 18 Eq. 330, 43 L. J. Ch. 655, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 119, 22 Wkly. Rep. 789; Ellam v. Martyn, 68 L. J. Ch. 123, 79 L. T. Rep. N. S. 510, 47 Wkly. Rep. 212; Kurtz v. Spence, 57 L. J. Ch. 238, 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 438; Fusee Vesta Co. v. Bryant, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 136. Threats must be followed with due diligence by suit or injunction granted. Colley v. Hart, 44 Ch. D. 179, 59 L. J. Ch. 308, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 424, 38 Wkly. Rep. 501 ; Challender v. Royle, 36 Ch. D. 425, 56 L. J. Ch. 995, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 734, 36 Wkly. Rep. 357; Rollins v. Hinks, L. R. 13 Eq. 355, 41 L. J. Ch. 358, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 56, 20 Wkly. Rep. 287 ; Household v. Fairburn, 51 L. T. Rep. N. S. 498. Filing suit promptly is a complete defense. Barrett v. Day, 43 Ch. D. 435, 59 L. J. Ch. 464, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 597, 38 Wkly. Rep. 362; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. u/New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre, etc., Co., 76 L. T. Rep. N. S. 405 ; Haskelf Golf Ball Co. v. Hutchinson, 20 T. L. R. 606. Suit against third party is no defense. Combined Weighing Co. v. Auto- matic Weighing Mach. Co., 42 Ch. D. 665, 58 L. J. Ch. 709, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 474; Goulard v. Lindsay, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 506. [XIII, C, 21] Suit must be against party threatened. Kensington, etc., Electric Lighting Co. v. Lane Fox Electrical Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 573, 64 L. T. Rep. N. S. 770, 39 Wkly. Rep. 650. Injunction wijl be refused where there is actual infringement. Barney v. United Tel. Co., 28 Ch. D. 394, 52 L. T. Rep. N. S. 573, 33 Wkly. Rep. 576; Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. New Incandescent Gas Light Co., 76 L. T. Rep. N. S. 47 ; Burnett v. Tak, 45 L. T. Rep. N. S. 743. Contra, Walker v. Clarke, 56 L. J. Ch. 239, 56 L. T. Rep. N. S. Ill, 35 Wkly. Rep. 245. The validity of the patent is not in issue but only infringement. Kurtz v. Spence, 33 Ch. D. 579, 55 L. J. Ch. 919, 55 L. T. Rep. N. S. 317, 35 Wkly. Rep. 26 [affirmed in 36 Ch. D. 770, 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 320, 36 Wkly. Rep. 438]. Threats in letters enjoined see Skinner v. Shew, [1893] 1 Ch. 413, 62 L. J. Ch. 196, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 696, 2 Reports 179, 41 Wkly. Rep. 217; Driffield, etc., Pure Linseed Cake Co. v. Waterloo Mills Cake, etc., Co., 31 Ch. D. 638, 55 L. J. Ch. 391, 54 L. T. Rep. N. S. 210, 34 Wkly. Rep. 360. Injunction refused where mere trade circular in good faith. So- ciete" Anonyme v. Tilghman's Patent Sand Blast Co., 25 Ch. D. 1, 53 L. J. Ch. 1, 49 L. T. Rep. N. S. 451, 32 Wkly. Rep. 71; Hal- sey v. Brotherhood, 15 Ch. D. 514, 49 L. J. Ch. 786, 43 L. T. Rep. N. S. 366, 29 Wkly. Rep. 9 [affirmed in 19 Ch. D. 386, 51 L. J. Ch. 233, 45 L. T. Rep. N. S. 640, 30 Wkly. Rep. 279]. Defendant must give particulars in support of threats. Union Electrical Power, etc., Co. v. Electrical Storage Co., 38 Ch. D. 325, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 427, 36 Wkly. Rep. 913; Wren v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 213, 38 L. J. Q. B. 88, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 277. May recover damages for threats where actual loss shown. Skinner v. Shew, [1894] 2 Ch. 581, 63 L. J. Ch. 826, 71 L. T. Rep. N. S. 110, 8 Re- ports 455. 99. Boston Diatiti Co. v. Florence Mfg. Co., 114 Mass. 69, 19 Am. Rep. 310; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 522 [affirmed in 57 N. Y. 119, 15 Am. Rep. 470] ; Adriance v. National Harrow Co., 121 Fed. 827, 58 C. C. A. 163; Davison v. Na- tional Harrow Co., 103 Fed. 360; Computing Scale Co. v. National Computing Scale Co., 79 Fed. 962 ; New York Filter Co. v. Schwarz- walder, 58 Fed. 577; Kelley v. Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 19, 10 L. R. A. 686; Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Car- penter, 32 Fed. 545; Baltimore Car Wheel Co. v. Bemis, 29 Fed. 95; Chase v. Tuttle, 27 Fed. 110; Pentlarge v. Pentlarge, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10.965a, 14 Reporter 579. 1. See, generally, JUDGMENTS, 23 Cyc. 1106 et seq. PATENTS [30 Cye.] 1055 court of competent jurisdiction in a suit on letters patent is conclusive upon the parties to such suit and their privies. 2 The character of conclusiveness attaches only to linal judgments or decrees, 3 and to those in which the validity of the patent was decided, 4 and it must appear that the judgment or decree was rendered after full consideration of the merits of the case. 5 While a judgment sustaining the validity of a patent does not operate as res adjudicata in a suit on the same patent against a different defendant, 6 respect for the stability of a judicial deci- Effect of previous adjudications upon grant- ing of preliminary injunctions see supra, XII, E, 4, b, (iv). 2. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Stan- ley Electric Mfg. Co., 117 Fed. 309; Simonds Counter Mach. Co. v. Knox, 39 Fed. 702; McCloskey v. Haraill, 15 Fed. 750; Crandall v. Dare, * 1 1 Fed. 902 ; Meyer v. Goodyear India-Rubber Glove Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. 891, 20 Blatchf. 91; Shoe Mach. Co. v. Cultan, [1896] 1 Ch. 667, 65 L. J. Ch. 314, 74 L. T. Rep. N. S. 166. Compare New Departure Bell Co. 17. Hardware Specialty Co., 69 Fed. 152; Simonds Counter Mach. Co. v. Knox, 39 Fed. 702. Effect of sale of interest pending suit. The finding of the decree is binding upon the respondent in an infringement suit where he sold out his interest in the infringing busi- ness pending the hearing and gave up to his vendee the control and management of the suit. Gloucester Isinglass, etc., Co. V. Le Page, 30 Fed. 370. Where a suit for infringement against a dealer is defended by the manufacturer at his own cost, the latter is bound by the decision in the case (Sacks v. Kupferle, 127 Fed. 569; National Folding- Box, etc., Co. v. Day- ton Paper-Novelty Co., 95 Fed. 991), not only upon all the questions that were raised and determined in the suit, but also upon all that might have been raised and deter- mined therein (Eagle Mfg. Co. v. David Bradley Mfg. Co., 50 Fed. 193). But it has been held that the defense of prior adjudication is not available to a defendant, dismissed from a suit for in- fringement on its own application, on the ground that it employed counsel and defrayed the costs of the defense made by its co-de- fendant, unless it appears by clear and definite evidence that such fact- was known to plaintiff. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Fed. 652, 48 C. C. A. 588. If a reissued patent is for the same inven- tion as that described in the original patent, a former decision is conclusive on the ques- tion of infringement. Cammeyer v. Newton, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,344, 4 Ban. & A. 159, 16 Off. Gaz. 720. Contra, Wells v. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,398, 1 Ban. & A. 60, 5 Off. Gaz. 364. The authority of a prior decision by an ap- pellate court is not limited to the facts and defenses discussed in its opinion, but ex- tends to all that were before it in the record. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Klipstein, etc., Co., 125 Fed. 543. A decree as to what is an infringement is conclusive upon the parties and upon the master, and extends to everything sub- stantially like the infringement decreed against. Wooster v. Thornton, 26 Fed. 274. 3. An interlocutory decree in an infringe- ment suit does not render the validity of the patent res adjudicata. Rumford Chemi- cal Works v. Hecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,133, 2 Ban. & A. 351, 10 Off. Gaz. 289, holding, however, that it does not follow that the controversy between the litigants remains open as it would have remained if there had been no previous adjudication. A decree in a prior suit for the infringement of a pat- ent is none the less conclusive between the parties on the issues of validity and infringe- ment because it was merely interlocutory, when the second suit was- commenced, where it is set up therein as an adjudication by a supplemental bill, after having ripened into a final decree. Bredin v. National Metal Weatherstrip Co., 147 Fed. 741 [a/firmed in 157 Fed. 1003]. 4. Leonard v. Simplex Electric Heating Co., 145 Fed. 946. 5. Steam-Gauge, etc., Co. v. Meyrose, 27 Fed. 213; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Tower, 26 Fed. 451. Where, in a suit for infringement, the bill is dismissed because of failure to show any infringement, the decree dismissing the bill will not estop plaintiff or his assigns from again suing the same defendant for infring- ing the same patent. Steam-Gauge, etc., Co. v. Meyrose, 27 Fed. 213. A suit dismissed without prejudice is not a bar to a second suit, noCfcconclusive of any issue joined in favor of the complainant. Robinson v. American Car, etc., Co., 135 Fed. 693, 68 C. C. A. 331. The overruling of a demurrer which defend- ant refused to argue is not an adjudication in favor of patentability. Wollensak v. Sar- gent, 33 Fed. 840. A decree pro confesso on a bill for in- fringement is conclusive so far at least as it is supported by the allegations of the bill. Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 5 S. Ct. 788, 29 L. ed. 105. Compare Everett v. Thatcher, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,578, 3 Ban. & A. 435, 2 Flipp. 234, 16 Off. Gaz. 1046. 6. Truman v. Carvill Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 470 ; Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co., 70 Fed. 816, 17 C. C. A. 430; McMillan v. Conrad, 16 Fed. 128, 5 McCrary 140. A judgment for infringement against a manufacturer is not conclusive upon a sub- sequent purchaser and user of the manu- factured articles either as to the validity of the patent or infringement. Van Epps V. International Paper Co., 124 Fed. 542. [XIII, E, 1] 1056 [30Cye.] PATENTS PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION sion and a proper regard for the security of property in the same patent require that it shall not be disturbed, unless there was very palpable error. 7 2. RECOVERY BY PATENTEE AS VESTING TITLE IN INFRINGER. A recovery of the profits for the use of a patented article does not vest the title in defendant ; 8 but the recovery of profits and damages from the manufacturers of an infringing machine vests the title to the use in the purchaser of the article and debars the patentee from recovering from a user for the use thereof. 9 But this can only be held on a clear showing that the purchaser was using the same patented article as that involved in the suit between the patentee and the infringing manufacturer, and that the user was a vendee of such manufacturer ; 10 and it would seem that to effect such a result it must further appear that the patentee's claim to profits and damages against the manufacturer has been actually paid and satisfied. 11 PATENT TO LAND. See MINES AND MINERALS ; PUBLIC LANDS. PATER EST QUEM NUPTI^ DEMONSTRANT. A maxim meaning " The nup- tials show who is the father." 1 PATER, ET MATER, ET PUER SUNT UNA CARD. A maxim meaning " The father, mother, and son are of one flesh." 2 PATERFAMILIAS OB ALTERIUS CULPAM TENETUR SIVE SERVI SIVE LIBERI. A maxim meaning " The father is responsible for the misconduct of his child or his slave." 8 PATERNITY. See BASTARDS ; PARENT AND CHILD. PATH. A term constantly used in our old acts as synonymous with " road." 4 (See, generally, PRIVATE HOADS ; STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.) PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION. A diseased condition of the body. 5 (See PATHOLOGY.) A servant or agent sued separately for in- fringing a patent is not bound by a former decision against his principal upon the ques- tion of the validity of the patent. Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 24 Fed. 806. A decree declaring the invalidity of a pat- ent is not a proceeding in rem, and does not prevent the same or another plaintiff from prosecuting a suit against another defendant, and establishing its validity upon the same or different evidence. Consolidated Roller- Mill Co. v. George