356 FEDERAL REPORTES. �but does not allege that the defendant is using machines made during the term of the patent in infringement upon it, nor that the orator fears sueh use. Without these allega- tions the case is not within the decision in Crossley v. Derby Gas-Light Co. 4 Law Jour. N. S. Pt. 1 Chan. 25, and shows no ground for relief by injunction. The other cases in favor of the orator, in which similar motions have been made, etand in the same way, and are to foUow thia. Motion denied. ���American Dumond Rook Bobing Co. v. Rutland Marble Co. �and others. �(Circuit Court, D. Vermont. May 8, 1880.) �Patent— Infrestgement bnjoinbd dubino Tbrm — Not Entitled to DiscHAEQB UPON ExpiBATioN. — A party who, during the terni of a pat- ent, has been enjoined from using a macliine infringiag thereon, is not, upon the expiration of such patent, entitled to be relieved from such injunction as to a machine manufactured during its existence. �In Equity. �Charles F. Blake, for plaintiff. �Edward J. Phelps, Walter C. Dunton and Aldace F. Walker, for defendants. �Wheelee, D. J. This is a motion to discharge the injunction on account of the expiration of the term of the patent. At the time of the expiration the defendants were using machines made during the term of the patent for use, in violation of the plaintiff's exclusive rights. It is argued for the defendants that to continue the restraint upon such machines after the expiration of the term of the patent is in effect to extend the term of the patent. The grant to the patentee was of the exclusive right to make, use, and vend to others to be used, the invention during the term. The right to exclude others from making, using and selling was the essential thing, and really ail that was granted. He had the right to do ail these himself , to any extent, without the grant. The exclusive right waa ����
