870 ���FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. ���assigned for granting the application of the defendants are of equal force to eompel a conclusion against the alternative application made by the plaintiff, and that application ia therefore denied. ���Ameeioan Diamond Eock Bobina Company v. Sheldon and �others. �(Circuit Court, B. Vermont. February, 1880.) �Patent— Motion fou BEHEAiiiNa.— The granting of a motion for a re- hearing af ter a decree for an injunction and account, upon the inf ringe- ment of a patent, rests in the Sound discretion of the judges who heard the cause. �Bamb — AeticI/ES Made Bepokb and Sold After Expiration op Patent. — Articles illegally manufactured during the life of a patent cannot lawfully be sold after the expiration of the same. �In Equity. �Whebleb, J. a motion for a rehearing bas been filed sînce the decree for an injunction and an account, in support of which counsel for the defendants have submitted a brief ; and a motion to restore the injunction as to machines made dur- ing the life of the patent infringing upon it bas been beard. The motion for rehearing rests entirely upon the ground that the decision made is, as is alleged, for many reasons errone- ous, and is supported by the certiacate of two counsel. �The English practice of granting a rehearing upon the cer- tiacate of two counsel, as a matter of course, does not prevail in the federal courts of this country. Brown v, Aspden, 14 How. 25 ; U. S. v. Wright's Adm'r, 1 Black, 489 ; Public Schools T. Walker, 9 Wall. 603. According to the present practice in this court the granting such motion rests in the sound discre- tion of the judges who bave heard the cause or made the decision. This seems to be the general practice in the circuit courts of the United States. Daniels v. Mitchell, 1 Story, 198 ; Jenkins v. Eldridge, 3 Story, 299. This ig ail that is claimed by counsel for the defendants. ��� �
