883 FEDERAL BKPORTBR. �stopper of such a length," etc. Manifestly the specified length is but a single feature of the stopper. The claim, therefore, is not to be read as embracing ail manner of in- ternai bottle stoppers having the specified length, irrespect- ive of other distinguishable characteristics and modes of operation. Construed so broadly, the claim could not be sus- tained. Matthews v. Skoenberger, supra. �I am of opinion that no infringement of either of the plaintiff's patents has been shown. �Let a deeree be drawn dismissing his bill, with posts. ���Potkam and another v, Hollendeb and another. {Circuit Court, 8. J). New York. February 10, 1881.) �1. Pi.EADnia— Joint and Sepabate Infkihgement— Pboof. �In a suit for infringement the bill alleged that the defendants had " jointly and collectivelj, and also separately," used and sold bottle- stoppera containing the patented invention. Seld, (although no ioint sale or use was shown,) as the bill was framed to i'ecover for separate infringements, and was not demurred to on that ground, «nd the case had gone on under that issue, that the plaintiS could maintain the suit as a suit against each defendant separately. �2. Combination — Tbansposition of Pabts— Infbinobmbuit — Impbove- �MBNT m Bottle-Stoppers. �Re-issued letters patent granted to Karl Hutter, June 5, 1877, for an improvement in bottle-stoppers, claimed, i'nter aZi'a.' "(1) The com- bination, substantially as before set forth, of the compound stopper, the yoke, the lever, and the supporting device on the bottle, by means of three pivotai connections, upon which the said members can be turned relatively to each other without disconnecting either one from the other." Held, that the mere transposition of the places of the yoke and the lever did not constitute such a substantial difference in respect to the invention, or the mode of operating the combination, as would avoid infringement. �3. LiCBNSE— CONSTKUCTION. �A patentee authorized a licensee to use and manufacture his inven- tion " for his own proper business," to a specified amount per annum. Held, in the ai)sence of affirmative authority, that a sublicense was not autIio)-i;',c>l by aUch agice.iiont. ��� �
