860 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �a lieense, and assert a right to use the invention describecl în the plaintiflf's patent without regard to the lieense, and in fact are now using that invention under a claim of right outside of the lieense. �So long as the defendants maintain their present attitude in regard to the plaintiff's patent, the circumstances attend- iing the notice of revocation of the lieense, as well as tha effect of that notice, are wholly immaterial. �The next position taken by the defendants is that they bave become entitled to have the agreement of compromise set aside, because of the discovery of a fact of which they were ignorant at the time of entering into that agreement, viz. : that there was in existence, prior to the date of the plaintifiE'B invention, an English patent, issued to one Taylor, for the same invention described in the plaintiff's patent; that the Taylor patent bas expired, and ail persons are now at liberty to use the invention therein described; that they bave pre- sented those facts to the supreme court of tbis state by a suit against this plaintiff, which they were compelled to bring in a state court, because ail the parties are citizens of this state, in whicb suit they bave prayed that the agreement of com- promise made between them and the plaintifï may be set aside, and the plaintiff perpetually enjoined from enforcing said agreement, or in any way availing bimself thereof. �In support of this position the defendants bave exhibited to this court the oomplaint filed in the state court, as well as a provisional injunction issued by the state court, directing the plaintiff, among other things, to refrain in any manner from interfering with or disturbing these defendants in mak- ing, using and selling the bungs which the defendants were licensed to sell by the lieense already referred to, and from interfering with the defendants' dealings with other persons respecting said bungs by intimidating or preventing the cus- tomers of the defendants from dealing with them for said bungs. Notwithstanding the scope of this injunction issued out of the state court, the question whether the pending pro- ceeding to punish the defendants for contempt shall go on or be stayed is to be decided by this court, and not by the state ��� �
