!
the doctrine of),'known substitutes" was referred to. If the by inventing a new mode of actuating the old levers. can enjoin all known meanS of. a\ltuatingthelll, then he can. enjoin Whitestllith&.Steven, which, as Ihave already shown" ul1til I cannot be maintained. the. test used in case 308 aaS the defendaJ;lt which the plaiJ;ltiff Under is inolu!iad . me,l:9 colorable evasions: j·This q\1estion is CQuld not enjoin Whitesmith; & $teven if should: adopt: connecting: rods, they cannot ,enjoin',the; defendt, ants, who, in law, have the right to takefr.om the· eal1lier Qf,two inventors, if he' does milt Gompl!!oin, whateverli.a, common to him,and the later inventor; .. ' d;. Bill. disIIiissed,. with· costs·. , ., ',,' .' ,; , !
"', I, , " I .. f
(J
ADAMS V.
and' others.
(Oircuit (Jot/ire,E. E. iMi8souri" May 19, 1881.) 1.lNFRmGEMENT OF PATENT-FoRFEITURE OF LICENSE.
Where the owner of a pateht licenses any one to manufacture and seH the patented article, and the license is upon express condition tllat it shall become void on the P8rtof the licensee to' pay a specified royalty to the licensor, and iti\l agreed that after breach of con<htion by the licensee he maybe treated as an infringer of the patent if lie continues to manufaeture or sell the patented'article, helll,. that the licensee cannot be treated by the as an Infringer, and sued as !luch ,in a !lpurt ofequity, for eontin,uiJlg to man'ufacture and sell the 'pat'ented article after breach of condiiion, ,and notice to 'hun from the licensor that he claitns a forfeiture 'of'th'e license; 2. ,SA,ME-,1.R&)QIlDIEij.
Under circumstanoes such as lire aopve set forth the oWjler of the patent Jl1Sy bring his action at' Jaw and, establish his royalty and recover what Is due, or file a bill in chancery and have the license annulltld. Ha?!tMt v. TiZgnman, 99 U. 8.647.
The bili alleges that complaillant'is' a citizen of Illinois, that defendants are citizens of Missouri;tha.t complainant is tbe :owner of'iJ. patent on an' improved lantern; that he licensed defendants to manufac-
. ' .. ' I" 11 . This is Be suit to charge defeItdants as infringers'.'of a patent. It. ; , · J "j
In Equity.
ADAMS.'''.:
209
ture such lanterns in St. Louis, and sell them throughout the United States, during the life of complainant's patent ; agreed to pay a specified royalty; that the license was upon condition" that if said parties of the se,poJld part ldefendants)shall,fai.l to keepan.dperform any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, for 10 days after notice in writinG. specifying said default, Of shall neglEl()t or refuse t? make returns, 01' to ina:ke payments for 20 days after the times' therefbrabov6 specified, the license herein granted shall1;>eeome null all rights to use any of saId shali party of the factllre or sale of saId Improvements aftersp.d). foi'feltUrll,. anti tHereupon the parties of the second part 'shall have'no under this agreement, but shall still remain bound c6venants and agreements herein contained, and· llhalhBot thereby. charged. from. any liability to. tbepaiJty of ,tM: fii'st . part· fqr: any license fees previously·accrued." The bilUurther a.lleged thatjde:fendarltll failed to pay royalty as agreed, and': hav8(nnt1jlaid any royalty' IFebnlary 14; 1880; thirtjupon ..the failure'of defenllants to pay·said.,roJ1<y, ,complainant caused them to be notified thll.t th;eioonttact ahd ,license would, after the date of the notice, be Il-lln. I.ll. of breach on the part of defendants; and that defendants, nott.ee, continu\Jd to make, etc., improved COlllpl/llllant's pateJlt. .Whereforll, complainantpr-ayed tbJlt .9-efel,ldants be decreed to account for and pay orer to him ail gainll and Im>fits. realized by them from maldng, using, or. thl' inlprovementa in his letters patent, and a . and perpetual injunction..' ' . ' . ". . ill their answer admlt: t,l;ie validity of patent,andthat have been licen,eed all claimed, bu(denythat§here has any Qn part, or that thesll.id is not still in force, and allege a breach on the part of
Noble et Orrick, for complainant. Edward, J. 0' Brien, .." TREAT, D. J. The case of "(. ,Tilghman,' 547, is this case. :l.i'he,plaintifI,eeeks tooharg!J the infringe:r:s of :tb,e patent"deepitet};1e, tract of licepse, in oonsequence, 9fnqI\-com,plilj.n(¥h:wii4 ,4.t fi.rst, ,it! seemed clea.r, lWq.j3,r the tbe suit fqunded; of Sta&e,B cOllrt taken jlj.p, not4iqg relllainsfQtthia com:t but to . this.bill) the plainiMftO',the.remedies. indicate,!} riI\ tPat , BilJ. ,diaqU8Be4, without' prej qdicl:\: ;': v;7,no.2-14
l; PA'r-lilNT . '
.
-
·
of· t4e ')ega,l titlj'l to anl!:al;1,a,ccou,m, he:vW PEl made aco-plainti#:with the owner of the)ega.l title upon applw\'.t1on to 'the " , , ' . " J :I
, If the or a; suit in equityforhis o,'IYn,lJenefit\ We
,,:,'
.,
,
"I',
'"
in,apMeJ:!.t
,",'
'2,-; ,8AME-BAME-iSAW_SAl\m.
The application' Will be made' after answel' 'filed, testimony is pnblished;:&Iid'thl! 'case is,placed,:-on the;tel'm , ! (calendar, for final hearing;: if it,.appear that: the was ,':: and mcurred,by the owner o£Aheequitable right for ,I his expected benefit and profit. : ,; ,. ii_dis
"'TICrf>.knoN,
-'Inaterial of "deshed prbportiOng, the" bottom' 1ieingfotJ;D:edtly fOl'dJng and cementing thefour pieces thereof , "and shown 'l'n !lettel'spat'etlt :No. 132,368, dated' Octiiber i2t, '" to T;' Pahner, 'iihb:iticipatedby )hade ()lJ fot Sliid'l"alllie't thll' 1i:r!tt'i!lititrilhereof, is v6'id;' "" ' " d , , ' : , o f ' , <'
",," :,,,1.,,,, ':,! out"Of a'sl)lglElsheetof J;I1aterial,pr'9\t1ded With; Ii" projecting piece db.! A..bOlt Ihlide
PAT:E:*t
:N'o,
:'
"
,',
suitalH(! there,of;, ,aria
InEquity. " L, ";,1,' "1 ',)'Ie NIXON, D. J. This suit was'origiuaJly'\btdugM,',"Y' ,(Junnthgharii 8': 'Pattereon;' of certain letters pa;t6nt, M)! fiS2,:.stt8,ttated: Oct<>Mf21, 1872,lssuedt61oile T: Pahner{fdt" improvement i'n the defemii fdt,' ati'i'l1junhtroIi, ",tld. 'afi'acdourW fer, the Jsaid lettei'Elpa.te'lltP: !After Miillliils#er 'by the'detfendant, andt; the p'tibliiCation df' 'testitnl:;rl.y 8i1ld; tlleplac'ing upon the'tetm ca.tenda'l"forful'lLt l1i:\a.tling; an applicatil»i 'to' thef!M'uitl tllliknd' tIte' lw<lelee&ir/gs' b')'ltiiaklt1g NbVleJty Paper Box of the' stll.ta! btl vania-a co-plaintiff in thWijase;': Upon tion it appeared in evidence that, whilst Patterson held the