722 federaIj reporter. �patent No. 165,455, before isaued to Lockwood, gave notice on the fifth of November, 1878, to the parties in interest, as required by section 4904 of the Eevised Statutes, anddirected the primary examiner to proceed to determine the question of the priority of invention. Testimony was taken and a hearing had, — the respective parties being represented by counsel, — and on the twelfth of December, 1879, the examiner adjudged Holton to be the prior inventor of the improvement. An appeal was taken from this decision to the board of ex- aminers in chief, which, after hearing the parties, reversed the primary examiner, on the twenty-fourth of February, 1880, and adjudged Lockwood to be the prior inventor. On an appeal from this last judgment to the comnissioner of patents, the commissioner, on the third of May, 1880, held that Holton was the original inventor of the improvement, but refused to grant the letters patent applied for, on the ground thatthe invention had been in public use and on sale for more tihan two years prior to Holton's application. From this last judgment, Holton took the case by appeal to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, which reversed the commis- sioner, on the twenty-eighth of September, 1880, and decided that Holton was entitled to his letters patent, They were accordingly issued to Cleaveland, as the assigaeepf Holton, on the nineteenth of October, 1880, mtmbered 233,511. . This condition of affaira existing between the parties, on the second of November, 1880, Lockwood filed a bill in this cotirt against Cleaveland, setting forth the existence of the two patents, and their interference, one with the other, and pray- ing that the deiendant's letters patent tnight be decreed void,
- and'that be might be restrained, by injunotion, frominstitut-
ing any suit at law or in equity for any alleged infringement thereof. The defendant has answered,, denying that Lock- wood was the original and first inventor of the improvement ■desctibed in his letters, patent, and claiming that he, as the iiBsignee of Holton, is entitled to the invention, and conclud- ing with the prayer that the complainant's patent may be «rdjudicated void. Simultaneously with the answer, and by Jeave of the court, the defendant, Cleaveland, also filed a ��� �
