208; FQDSBAIi EEPOBTBB. . �the doctrine of "known substitutes" was referred to. If tb.e plaintiff, by inventing a new mode of actuating the old levers, can enjoin all knowu DieanB of actuating thenj, then he can. enjoin Whitesmith & Steven, which, as I have already shown,; cannot be maintained. I prefex, until I am b^tier informed, the test used in case 308;: 5tas the defendant taken.anything which the plaintiff inveuted? Under "anything" is inoluded meye colorable evasions.' j This question is already answered,; If thA plaintiffi could not enjoi» WhiJiesmithr & iSteven if they shouldiadoptf Connecting; rodsy they cannot jeiijointhe; def^odt ants, who, in law, have the right to take from the eaiflier of ;t#o, inventors, if he does oat comjilain, whatevertis, commou'to hiœ , and the later inventoif, if i he takes nothing /laore, ; �Bill disniissed, with costs.. ■ . , -. .. - ' ^ r ' ���Adams Vf Methose and others. {OircuitChurt, M. B.Mmouri, May 19, liSl.) �1. iNFEINGBMENT OF PaTENT — FORFKITTJRE OF LlCENSIi. �WHere the owner of a patekt licenses any one to manufacture and seli th© patented article, and the hcense is upon express condition that it shall become void up9P f^ilure on the part of the licensee to pay a specifled royalty to the licensor, and it i? agreed that af ter breach of con(iition by the licensee he may be treated as an infringer of the patent if he continues to manufacture or sell the patented' article, keld,' that the licensee cannot be treated by the lk!e|isc>r as an in- fringer, and sued as such in a court of equity, for eontinuiag to man- ufacture and sell the patented article after breach of condition, and notice to him from the licensor that he claihis a forfeifure bf the licenseJ ' , ' �2. BAMB-rrK^WDIES. ' . . �Under circumstanoes such as p.re abpve set fprth the ow^er of the patent may bring his action at la^ and establish his royalty and recover \i^hat is due, of flle a bill in chancery and have the license annulled. EarUliy. Tughman.dd V-B-eel. �In Equity. ,^ , . �Tliis is a suit to charge defeijaants as infringerspf a patent. �The bili alleges that complainant'is a citizen of Illinois, and tiiat de- fendants are citizens of Missouri; that complainant is the owner of a patent on an improved lantern ; that he licensed defendants to manufac- ��� �
