Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/916

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

902 fEDBRAIi EBPORTfiB. �In Equity. �Coburn e Thaeker, Thomas H. Dodge, Benjamin F. Thurs- ton, Offield & Towle, West de Bond, Laivrence, Campbell e Law- rence, Charles Mason, Hiram P. Dillon, and Miller e Godfrey, for oomplainants. �George Paysan, N. C. Gridley, Munday e Evarts, George Christy, and Albert H. Walker, for defendant. �Dbxjmmond, C, J. These are two of a series of 14 cases brought by the plaintiff upon the chancery aide of this court, for an injunction and damages by reason of the alleged infringement by defendant of certain patenta owned by the complainants, relating to barbed fence wire. By the first suit the plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the following patents, issued by the United States : (1) Patent No. 67,117, issued July 23, 1867, to William D, Hunt, and re-issued, No. 6,976, March 7, 1876, to Charles Kennedy, assignee of Wil- liam D. Hunt; (2) patent No. 150,683, issued May 12, 1874, to Joseph H. Glidden, and re-issued, No. 6,913, February 8, 1876, to said Glidden; (3) patent No. 66,182, dated June 23, 1867, issued to Lucien B. Smith, and re-issued. No. 7,136, dated May 23,1876; (4) patent No. 157,124, dated November 24, 1874, issued to J. P. Glidden, — ail of which patents, it is charged, have been duly assigned by mesne assignments to the plaintiffs, the Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Com- pany and Isaac L. Elwood. �The patents involved in the second suit are as follows : (1) Patent No. 74,369, issued to Miehael Kelly, dated February 11, 1868, and re-isaued, No. 6,902, dated February 9, 1876; �(2) patent No. 84,062, dated November 17, 1868, issued to Miehael Kelly, and re-issued, No. 7,035, dated April 4, 1876; �(3) patent No 153,965, issued to Charles Kennedy, dated August 11, 1874, — the title to ail of which patents bas, it is claimed, been, by mesne assignment from the respective pat- entees, duly vested in the complainant, the Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company. �The defences set up are — •(!) A deniai of the patent- ability of the devices in question, because, from the state of the art, it only requires mechanical skill, and net in- ����