The Miller's Falls Company v. Ives. bottom of the slot, formed with a bevelled orifice, has its office to force the lower ends of the jaws together, as they are forced by the pressure of the thimble against the walls of the cavity. In the peculiar formation of these parts of the combination consist the patentable features of the Amidon patent. The question of novelty depends materially upon the construction which is given to the patent and to its first claim, which is as follows: "In combination with the jaws G, G, or their equivalents, constructed to move away from or toward each other in the manner described, so that they may conform to the taper of the bit shank, the screw thimble F, or its equivalent, to force the said jaws upon said shank, as and for the purpose set forth." If this claim means the jaws G, G, or any jaws constructed so as to move away from or towards each other, in the general manner described, so that they may conform to the taper of a bit shank, in combination with the screw thimble F, or any thimble which forces the jaws upon the shank, the claimed invention was probably well known. Such a construction would limit the patentable part of the invention to the third claim, and would make it consist of the recess at the bottom of the slot in combination with bevelled jaws; but such a construction is not in accordance with the actual invention or with the specification. The peculiarities of the jaws G, G, are minutely described, and stress is laid upon the peculiar shape of the jaws, which evidently constituted, in the mind of the patentee, the distinctive feature of his invention. The protuberance and convergence of the screw thimble are described, though the same prominence is not given to the thimble as to the jaws. The first claim specifies the peculiarly shaped jaws G, G, or jaws which are substantially formed like the jaws G, G, in the following particulars, viz., which are constructed to loosely fill the slot, and so that they may move apart on a pivot, or may be moved bodily away from or towards each other in the described manner, and thus conform to the taper of different bit shanks, in combination with the peculiarly shaped screw thimble F, or a thimble which is so constructed as to allow, by its protuberance, the of range The Miller's Falls Company v. Ives. movement of the jaws which thimble F permits, and also to bind the heels and noses of the jaws upon the shank. This claim has special reference to jaws pivoted and bevelled, which have the range of movement between the laterally supporting walls of a slotted cylinder which the jaws G, G, have, in combination with the encircling thimble, which, by its protuberant shape, also gives the jaws their capacity of movement, and, by its convergence, clamps the noses of the jaws. The grooves are particularly specified in the second claim, which is for the peculiarly shaped jaws G, G, with tapered and grooved faces. The third claim is for the cavity D, in the bottom of the slot, with a bevelled orifice, in combination with the jaws G, G, which combination permits a lateral movement of the jaws within the cylinder, and the closing of the heels of the jaws within the cylinder, and closing of the heels of the jaws when acted upon by the thimble. This statement of the invention and this construction of the patent excludes from the consideration of anticipatory devices, the Stackpole brace of 1862, the Stackpole patent of 1867, the Goodell brace, and the Bartholomew brace of 1867. The jaws of neither of these braces have tapering ends or noses which are closed over the shoulders of the bit shank, and which are acted upon by a protuberant and convergent sleeve or thimble. These devices were not, however, mainly relied upon by the defendants, who chiefly urged, as an anticipatory invention, the Dexter H. Chamberlain awl holder, patented in 1854. This tool is a useful one for holding the shanks of awls, or other similar small tools, but could not be relied upon to endure the strain and twist which necessarily comes upon an auger or bit, whose radially cutting edges are forced by successive revolutions into the wood. The tool consists of a pair of clamps, each one of which is cylindrical upon the outside. The upper and lower ends are conical, which ends are cut off and do not run to a point. Through the centre of the inside of each one of the clamps, is cut a triangular groove from top to bottom, so that, when the clamps are placed together, the triangles face each other, and make a VOL. XIV.-12 The Miller's Falls Company v. Ives. uniform, straight, square groove throughout the extent of the clamps or jaws. These jaws enclose the shank of an awl, and are screwed together and kept in place by a dome-shaped screw nut. These jaws are not like the Amidon jaws, loosely placed in a slotted socket, to give lateral motion, nor are they so constructed as to accommodate themselves to bit shanks of varying taper, nor is the dome-shape sleeve the equivalent of the protuberant and converging sleeve of the Amidon patent. In brief, the Chamberlain holder has neither the movable nor tapered jaws, nor the thimble, of the Amidon stock. On February 16th, 1871, the plaintiffs, or their predecessors, licensed the defendants to make two thousand braces of their patent, No. 111,649, dated February 7th, 1871, for a royalty of ten per cent. on the net prices for which the defendants sold the braces. They did not manufacture the precise invention represented in their patent, but made a quantity of the braces known as the "Ives brace," and which are made according to the Amidon patent. I have not seen the Ives patent, and therefore do not understand precisely the difference between the two articles, but understand, from the testimony of the defendants' expert, that there is less capacity of lateral movement of the jaws at the foot of the brace in the Ives patent, than in the Amidon, and that the elder patent is broader than the Ives patent. The defendants were licensed only to make the article which was shown in their patent. On December 30th, 1875, the defendants, by agreement, submitted to a preliminary injunction against manufacturing the Ives brace, and conceded that it was an infringement of the Amidon patent, without conceding any other questions in the case, in regard to other braces. It was further agreed, that, in any accounting, the defendants shall account for all Ives braces, in accordance with the terms of said agreement of February 11th, 1871. Upon this state of facts, I think that the Ives brace is not protected by the license, and it is also true that the plaintiffs have agreed that the infringement is to be paid for as if it was so protected. The questions in regard to the Centennial and Centennial The Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice. Novelty braces only remain. These two braces differ from the Ives and the Novelty mainly in this, that the jaws are attached to the side walls of the bevelled cavity in the foot, and that these side walls move on a pivot towards each other, when operated upon by the screw thimble, and so pinch the jaws together. This accomplishes the same result, in substantially the same way in which it is accomplished in the Amidon patent, where the heels of the jaws are forced together in the bevelled orifice by the screw thimble acting directly upon the jaws, or, as it is expressed in the patent, the jaws are "forced together by the inclined surfaces of the thimble F and the cavity D, when the said thimble is screwed on the foot." It is not material whether the walls of the orifice pinch the jaws, or the jaws are pinched against the walls. These two braces, differing from the other braces of the defendants only in the particular which has been named, infringe also the third claim of the Amidon patent, and, equally with the other braces, infringe the first and second claims of that patent, and also of the Horton patent. There should be a decree for an injunction against the four braces of the defendants, and for an accounting. Charles E. Mitchell, for the plaintiffs. Benjamin F. Thurston, for the defendants. THE RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS vs. THOMAS C. VICE. IN EQUITY. THE SAME VS. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS-56 SUITS. Twenty days before the expiration of a patent for a self-raising flour, motions for injunctions, in over 50 suits, to restrain the infringement of the patent, The Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice. were made. All of the suits but one were against grocers who were selling the flour. One was against a manufacturer. The patent had been sustained, on final hearing, in other suits, but had been much litigated, and until recently. Since then there had been no unnecessary delay: Held, that no laches could be imputed to the plaintiff. Apprehension that the grocers may fear to sell non-infringing flours, and thus cause injury to the manufacturers of such flours, is no ground for withholding injunctions against the grocers. That a person who has infringed by making the infringing flour has desisted, and has no intention of again making it, is no ground for not enjoining him. (Before BENEDICT, J., Eastern District of New York, April 2d, 1877.) BENEDICT, J. These actions come before the Court upon motions for preliminary injunctions. There are many actions, similar in character, brought by the same plaintiffs, who, as assignees of Eben Norton Horsford, are the owners of a patent for self-raising flour, made by the use of an acid phosphate of lime, and to be employed as a substitute for leaven or ferment in the making of bread. The defendants are, with one exception, grocers, who are charged with selling a self-raising flour such as is described in the plaintiffs' patent, to families where the same is used solely for the purpose of making bread. One of the defendants is a manufacturer of a self-raising flour. The plaintiffs' patent has been the subject of much litigation, which has resulted in its being sustained by the Courts, upon final hearings. The fourth claim of the patent has been sustained by the final decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey. The third and fourth claims have been sustained by final decree in the District of South Carolina. Upon this motion, it has not been contested that the prior adjudications upon the patent in other Courts afford a sufficient ground for asking a preliminary injunction in these actions, and the motion for an injunction has been opposed upon grounds outside of the question of the validity of the patent, and, first, upon the ground of laches, because the patent will expire on the 221 of the present month. To this objection. the answer is, that the plaintiffs have been compelled to main |