98
FEDERAl, REl'OHTbH.
TUTTLE and 9thers
'V.
MATTHEWS. l
(OVr/Juit Oourt, N. D. HellO York· . July 6,1886.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IDRINGBlMENT-lNvENTOR'S RIGHTS.
The owner of a valid patent secures, by virtue thereof, three substantIve rights: the right to make, the right to sell, and the right to use the_patented He who invades anyone of these rights is an infringer. Bird8ell v. ,_hahol, 112 U. S. 485; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244.
2. SAME-RECOVERY AGAINST MANUFACTUBEB DOBlS NOT DEDICATE INvENTION TO USER.
3.
The chief value·of many patented maCblnes is in their use. If a recovery against'a manufacturer dedicates the machines to the public so that it caD thereafter be used by all with impunity, the "exclusive right" of the pa· tentee does not exclude the most dangerous trespasser upon his property.
SAME-INJUNCTION-COI.LEOTioN .OF ROYALTY FROM USER OF MACHINE.
An injunction will not be granted, at the instance of a manufacturer of an infringing machine, to restrain the collection of royalty from the user of such machine, although the manufacturer, in a suit against him for his infringement, has included the machine in an accounting had before a master; no final decree having been entered against him, and nothing having been paid by him to the owner of the patent.
Motion by the Defendant for an Injunotion. J. R. Bennett, for the motion. G. H. Duell, opposed.
COXE, J. The oomplainants are the owners, for the state of New York, of reissued letters patent No.9, 148, dated April 13, 1880, issued to David L. Garver for an improvement in harrows. An interlocutory decree was entered on the eighteenth of May, 1886, and the oomplainants proceeded to an accounting. While the hearing was pending before the master, the defendant ascertained that the complainants' agents, by means of threatened litigation, had collected, or were attempting to collect, money from the users of the infringing harrows for which defendant has accounted in this action. No final decree has been entered, and nothing has been paid by the aefendant to the complainants. The court is now asked to grant an injunction restraining the complainants and their agents from inter· fering with the defendant's customers in the use of the harrows Bold to them by him. The owner of a valid patent secures, by virtue thereof, three substantive rights: the right to make, the right to sell, and the right to use the patenied article. He who invades anyone of these rights is an infringer. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S.485; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244. The chief value of many patented machines is in their use. If a recovery against a manufacturer dedicates the machine to the public so that it can thereafter be used by all with impunity, the "exclusive right" of the patentee does not exclude the most dangerous trespasser upon his property. 1
Edited by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
BALDWIN ".RAYNES.
99
As the complainants are at liberty to sue the wrong.doer, whether he be a manufacturer, seller, or user, they have a right to inform him in advance of their intention so to do, and if he prefers to agree with his adversary in limine, it is not easy to see how the court can fere. In this case, as in similar cases, where the infringers are often innocent of any wrong, and ignorant of the provisions of the law, it is not unlikely that the agents employed by the complainants act with· out discretion, and, at times, oppressively. If they exact money illegally, the complainants, who are, it is said, amply responsible, can be compelled to make restitution. The court, however, can hardly be expected to dictate a form of words for the use of these agents, or to formulate rules to regulate their conduct. Until equity has jurisdiction to enforce the precepts of"the decalogue, the visit of the "patent-right man" will not be anticipated with emotions of pleasure alone. Though there may be individual cases of hardship dis· closed b1 these papers, it must be remembered that it is but natural that the complainants, after years of severe and arduous litigation, should be tenacious in the maintenance of their rights, and active in seeing that they are no longer invaded. I can see no just ground for interference. The motion is denied.
BALDWIN
v.
HAYNES. l
«(JiIrcuit CO'Ulrt, D. J£a88achu8etta. July 9, 1888.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COMBINATION OF OLD DEVICES-INVENTION.
Mangles having a large feed-roll, surrounded by small polishing rolls, having difl'erf'ntial speed, being old, and mangles employin&, the large roll as a polishing roll, and small ones as feed rolls, the latter havmg the same rate of speed, being also old, there was no invention in combining in a mangle a large roll for polishing, and small feed-rolls having difl'erentialspeed. Letters patent No. 253,661, of February 14,1882, to Joseph F. Baldwin, for ari improvement in manl;l:les, are void for want of invention in the making of the device therein descnbed.
2.
SAME-PARTICULAR PATENTS.
In Equity. Livermore ct Fish and E. L. Ohamplin, for complainant. Esek Cowen and J. L. S. Roberts, for defendant. COLT, J. The defendant is charged with infringement of letters patent No. 253,661, dated February 14, 1882, granted to Joseph F. Baldwin, the complainant, for improvements in mangles. The invention consists of a mangle having a large heated smooth.faced polishing roll, around which are several feed·rolls with elastic coverings,
lJ£.dited by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
