muon v. Kama. 47
2. SAMm—=Evion:Ncm—VALm1rY or PA·rmn·r—ConLarisnAL` A·r·r·.•.cx.
_ In a suit to restrain one from issuing circulars threatening to bring suits for ·
infringements against allcustomors ealmg 1n_a._oompet1tor’s patented arti-
cle, acourt. of equity will not; pass upon_the validity o the (patent, but it may
consider the state of the art in connection with the defen ant’s conduct, to
ascertain his good faith in issuing the circulars.'
In Equity. On bill for injunction.
Matthews do Dwbker, for complainant. , *
Banning dc Banning, for defendants. “ `
Bnonomr, J. This is a bill in equity, in which the complainant
seeks to restrain the defendant Kane from sending circulars injurious to
the complainant’s trade and business. Both complainant and defendants
are manufacturers of what are known as "noiseless" or "muH·led" slates
for use of school children. The complainant is the owner of apatent
issued to one Ebenezer Butler, February 15,*1870, in which the slate
was muffled, or rendered noiseless, as it is said, by making a slot through
the frame near the outer edge, into which was spirally wound a. piece of
listing, cloth, or other fibroustmaterial, which would deaden 0r’ break
the sound of the slate when it came in contactwith the desk or any other
hard substance;. the listing operating to mutile the faces andgthe edges
of the frame; Complainant is also the assignee of letters pateiitgranted
April 3, 1877, to Francis WL ·Mallett, for anoiseless or muffled. slate;
the_muffiing,being obtained by encircling theouter edge or the frame
ofthe s1ate,,with a stripof wood a little largerthan the thickness of the
frame, which strip, of wood was coveredwithcloth, or other softmate-
rial, so as to muflle both the edges and the faces of the slate frame; The
bill also alleges that the defendants are manufacturers of noiseless or
muffled school slates,;-having their place of business in the city of Qhi-
_cago,:—underi`_a patent,as they claim, granted March 28, 1877 , to Harry
,C. Goodrich,. whichiwasi reissued. September 26,,1882, with an `addiy
tional claim. It also appears that this classof goods is sold extensively
·byr both these manu·facturers.to jobbers, who supply the retail dealers,
' from whom the slates arepurchased for school use`; and that ;the.compe-
tition between these manufacturers is active and vigorous; that bothare
fseeking to control as much of the trade as possible, or all of, it, if they
can do so; and that since August 1, 1883, upto the filing of this bill,
which was in March, 1884, the defendants have sent out to the trade,e
·that is, to-the jobbers and persons engaged in this class of slatespecit-
culars threatening all who should buy from the complainant, or deal in
his slates, with law-suits, uponthe ground that the cornpla~inantts· slate
is an infringement of the Goodrich patent as reissued. I do not intend
to quote all these circulars, but extracts from a few will illustra,te_ the
character, of;the attacks which the defendants have made upon the com—
.plainant’s business. In a circularjissued September 26, 1882, and sent
generally to the trade, occurs the following language:. . . ,. I: . ,   ;
' “WnA·r ]If0"i`wE· *PRo1·osn‘*ro D0 wm·11·INrmn¤1=:ns? Nothingror the
present, so far as prosecuting Emack is concerned, and for reasonstthat the