48 \ FEDERAL REPORTER.
l publicly known long before this patent was applied for. Paper bags
` (being old for various purposes when protection from dirt or wear was
~desirable,‘· there was no invention in using them to protect blankets; and
with an article -as iiexible as paper,1there can be_no invention in adapt-
’ing‘·a bag made of paper to the shape of article it is to cover and protect.
ln the light of these authorities, I cannot see why, in a suit for infringe-
<ment of la patent so clearly and baldly void as this, the court ought not
to savejthe defendant from the vexation and expense of a trial upon
proofs by sus-taining az demurrerto the bill. If, after a» case reaches the
supreme court, that court can,from its common knowledge, without ref-
ereticeitojthe pleadings and proofs, ibut merely from an examination of
fthe patent*»itself,— sayqithat the patent is void, I see no reason why the
court ef original jurisdiction cannot do the same. 1 · » y
The demurrer is therefore sustained, and the bill dismissed for want
ofequity. · ·· s - 1   · A ` 1
’ Hunan and another v: Mvmzs Snmuay DEPOT and-others.
* ¤ j ’ r ·(0r>rcuil Court, 8; D. New York. December 6,1887.) . “
Pwimrs FOR,INVEN'1‘IONS?·INFRINGEMENl‘-·I.NJUNCTION—FOREIGN Pnnnrt
Plaintiffs purchased an invention upon which a British patent had been ob- s
` tained, but which had expired before the purchase by reason of the failure to
= f~.pay’the rfse to keep it a1ive.# rriieyrtnen _obtained American patents, and
. sought to enjoin defendants frcgg11nfr1ng1ng upon them. Held, that there
, , . was tpo much doubt of the vali ity of the American patents to warrant the
issuing of a preliminary injunction. .
° " 'A In Equity. Bill for injunction. ·
Albert Comstock, for complainants.
‘ ' Wm. 'H. Sage, for defendants. j ‘ l
; 1 LACOMBE, ,1. This is an application for a preliminary injunction to
restrain the infringementof two letters patent, owned by complainants,
and issued, the one, June 27, 1882, (260,232,) to Henry Huber, as-
signee by mesne assignments of Peters & Donald; the other, March 28,
_ ..`_ 1882, (255,485,) to James E. Boyle. Both patents are for improvements
inrsanitary water—closets, The application, so far as it concerns the Hu-
ber patent, isresisted, intcr.alw,·on the ground of abandonment. It ap-
pears that ion April 7, 1874, `Peters & Donald took out a British patent
for their invention. On April 9, 1881, this British patent expired by rea-
· son of their failure to pay the fee required by the British patent law to
· keep it alive} Boyle subsequently (October. 27, 1881) purchased the
» Peters‘& Donald: invention, andsold it (November .26, 1881) to Huber,
  whoon November 29, 1881, applied for a patent thereon. The Ameri-
can patent was granted to him June 27, 1882.
I ' 'It is claimed bythe defendants that by reason of the failure of the in-
ventors toikeep alive the British patent, their invention was abandoned