A WOOSTER v. HAND`!. 51
sence of the “oblong” shape of the tube, which is one of the elements
of the nrst claim of the reissue. As against the Bemis Company,
complainant may perhaps contend successfully that this was admit-
ted, and cannot now be denied by that company; but I am at a loss
to see how and when this respondent admitted it, and estopped itself
from denying it. An estoppel cannot arise unless it grows out of a.
transaction to which the person estopped is a party or privy, and I
do not understand that one who may purchase a patented article
from a licensee of the patentee can, from that fact alone, be held bound
by the license or its recitals, or that it establishes any contractual
relations between such a purchaser and the patentee.
Bill of complaint dismissed.
Woosrms v. Haunt. V
l (Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. July 22, 1884.)
1. BQUITY—PRACTICE—RULE 88,-·RmnnAnme.
Rule 88 of the equity rules prescribed by the supreme court of the United ·
States, provides for a rehearing after a final decree of an appealable character.
2. SAun—I1~:rn11Locuronv Dncmzns. ·
Interlocutory decrees remain under the control of the court and subject to V
its revision until the whole matter in controversy is disposed of by ilnal ecree.
3. SAME—EFFECT or Surname Courvr Decision Arran I.N'.l‘ERLOCUTOB.Y anu mr-
ronn Finn. Dncmsn.
When, after an intcrlocutorydccree, and before a final decree ln a case, the
supreme court renders a decision affecting the case, this court will make its
iinal decree in accordance with the decision of the supreme court, and as if that
decision had been made before any decision in the case. ·
4. Pyrnnrs ron INVENTIONS-—REIBSUEB~I{EQUISITEB ron.
Where, by an application for the reissue of a patent, it is sought merely to
enlarge a claim, a clear mistake and inadvertence must be shown, and a speedy
. application for its correction, without unreasonable delay, must be made. ‘
5. Bum. .
Where, by the reissue of a patent, it is sought merely to enlarge a claim, a pat~
enlee cannot wait until other inventors have produced new forms of improve~
ment and then apply for an enlargement embracing the new forms.
6. SAME-DELAY m Rmssum or PATli`»NT—WHEN Coeur ·ro Dnomm Unnmsom
.usr.n.
Where it is apparent, from a comparison of the patents, that a reissue is
made to enlarge the scope of the patent, the court may decide whether the
delay in obtaining the reissue was unreasonable, and the reissue void.
7. 8.um——INrsmenunnr or- Pmrnrrrs-Brm., wasn Drsmssmn.
» Where a reissue of a patent is sought merely to expand its claims so as to
embrace structures brought into use etween the time of the issuing of the
' original and the time of the application for the reissue, and which were not in·
fringements of the claim of the original, there being no proof of mistake or
inadvertence, the right to areissue is lost by a delay 0 more than 12 years, and.
the reissue being made and suit. hmuzht for the infringement thereof, the bill
» will be dismissed. c