» izrrrun v. Rooms. 49
to the public, and could not be afterwards reclaimed. The point raised
is a new one. The decisions which have heretofore been rendered as to
the effect of the lapseof an English patent for non—payment of taxes do
not apply; they deal simply with the effect of a lapse subsequent to the
issue of the American patent. Paillard v. Bruno, 29 Fed. Rep. 864;
Holmeav. Metropolitan Oo., 21 Fed. Rep. 458; Realesner v. Sharp, 16 Blatchf.
383; Henry v. Tool Oo., 3 Ban. & A. 501. Without passing upon the
objeetiotrthus presented by the defendants, it is sutlicient to say that it
raises too great doubt of the validity of the patent to warrant the issuing
» of a preliminary injunction, in the absence of an adjudication in its sup-
port.
With regard to the alleged infringement of the seventh claim of the
Boyle patent, No. 255,485, anticipation is suggested in a priorpatent
to Owen; the variation between the forms of closet in the two patents be-
ing, it is claimed, notsuch as will support the patentability of the later
device. In the absence of adjudication upon the Boyle patent, and in
view of all the facts, a preliminary injunction will not issue. t
KITTI.E ·v. Roenns. SAME o. Bauivnn. SAME v. Sonomon and others.
` . r SAME v. Fnmr. ’
. t (0'irauit Court, 8. D. New York.. November 10, 1887.)
Pumnrs ron INVEN'1‘IONB—·INFBINGEMENT—INJUNCTION—EXPIRATION or Pn-
mllllie fact that a patent has but a few weeks to run is no ground for a demur~
rar to a bill for injunction of an infringement, and an accounting, and will
not take away the diurisdiction of the court to grant such relief as the p1ain·
tiff may be entitle to; following Kruk v. De aaf 80 Fed. Rep. 689.
In Equity. Bill for injunction.
These are actions in equity, askingifor a temporary injunction to m-
strain defendant from infringing a patent, and for an accounting. It ap-
pears that the complainant, Samuel Kittle, was the inventor of a spiral
spring for use in mattresses, (Kwle v. Hall, 29 Fed. Rep. 508;) that
January 4, 1870, he obtained a patent for his invention, which patent
expired January 4, 1887. The number of the patent was 98,505. Ac-
tions were brought against several defendants for infringement, the bills
being verified from 30 to 50 days before the expiration of the patent,
the day for appearance being about a month before the expiration of the
patent, and the day for answering or demurring being January 3, 1887.
The defendant demurred on the ground that the patent had so short a
time to run that the court had no equity jurisdiction.
V James P. Foster, for complainant. ,
Wheeler H. Peckham, for defendants.
v.33r·.no.1--4