fitEIOSB V. EBICELBERGEB. 465 �It is not shown by the defendant that he had any license or permisBion to do bo. He bas, therefore, infringed patent No. 132,112. �Conceding, for the purposes of this cage, that the assign- ment of November 4, 1872, assigna the right to improve- ments to be subsequently invented or patented by the defend- ant, in or of, or in aid of, the inventions or improvements patented by-patent No. 182,111 and patent No. 132,112, it is manifest that the reasons before set forth as showing that the inventions embraced in patent No. 172,896 and in pat- ent No. 181,113 do not infringe patent No. 132,111, are equally cogent to show that such inventions are not improve- ments in, or of, or in aid of, any of the inventions or improve- ments patented by patent No. 132,111; and it is not con- tended that any of such inventions are improvements in, or of, or in aid of, any invention or improvement patented by patent No. 132,112. �A decision as to the proper interpretation and scope and effect of the assignment of November 4, 1872, is unneces- Bary. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief it claima nnder said assignment, even nnder the interpretation of it contended for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the nsual decree in respect of the infringement fo patent No. 132,112. The question of costs is reserved for further hear- ing. ���Bteioeb V, Heidelbeboeb. (Circuit Gotirt, 8. D. New Tork. November 12, 1880.) �1. IifFBiNGKMKN'i>— Employe — Commissioks— Injdmction. — Edd, undei the circumstances of this case, that an employe is liabieto account for the commissions derived by him from the sale of infringing goods, and that he could be enjoined from making any further sales. �î Samb— Emplotbk awd Bmplotb— Puœa m Bk-r-SM, further, that a suit against the employer in another district, for such sales, could not be pleaded in bar to a suit against such employe for an account and injunotion. ����
