*1 Cfc. Deener. Cochrane in tbe Statute of one of tbe contained Limitar some exceptions are still in tions, those exceptions in sL where even jurisdiction force. title tbe
Better claiming prem- show that proof persons hostile to adverse and ises were her notified that possession in what is exhibited their than claim can be imagined hardly suit before the case before present years court. Thirty was insti- commenced, a action common-law ejectment tuted for in which the father grantors the same premises, of the fictitious described as the lessors were plaintiffs defeated suit, it that the suit was plaintiff appears husband, defendant, her seeond the testatrix of the aided then full. life. there is that no
Viewed we are light, error in Judgment the record. affirmed. Deener. Columbia, Supreme Court of the District of powers jurisdiction of 1. law, equity same, cases, those of as well case, involving States; a the valid- and whether of the United courts circuit a infringement letters-patent, shall be first tried at law is ity matter or jurisdiction. not of of discretion and flour, manufacturing processes for which let- improvement in for reissued 2. The assignees, E. to William Cochrane his ters-patent No. were 1874, letters-patent 37,317,granted 21, No. to him April a reissue of 1863, air, 6, using drafts or currents of does consist Jan. blast, whole, application carrying comprising the process as a middlings, being separated whereby after impurities the fine off regrinding. purified, parts, preparatory to particular irrespective form may patentable, of the instru- process be A process steps of a be a certain If one of the substance used. mentalities may powder, a not be at all material what instrument be is to reduced hammer, object, pestle a machinery whether is used to effect or but, mortar, out; may pointed if is not mill. con- or a Either be machine, particular the use of the other would be an to that tool or fined general process being infringement, the same. produce given process of certain materials to result. is a mode of treatment 4. A acts, subject-matter, performed upon the to be act or series of It is an useful, thing.- If state or new and to different transformed reduced language machinery. patentable piece just as as a tbe law, an art. Oct. 1876.] machinery 5. pointed perform process out as suitable to may may patentable, be new or may whilst the itself altogether new, produce entirely process requires new result. The things that certain substances, should be order; done with certain and in a certain but the tools doing may to be used in secondary consequence. be of
6. The court holds letters-patent bearing that reissued April 21, No. date improvements processes manufacturing flour; No. bear- *2 ing Aug. 24,1870; 6,594 6,595, date bearing No. and No. Aug. 17,1875, date improvements flour, for bolting in machines for and issued to William F. valid, assignees, Cochrane infringed and his and defendants, were —are using according machines letters-patent constructed 5,846, reissued No. bearing-date April 1,1873, being 135,953, letters-patent a reissue of No. bear- ing 18, 1873, granted date Feb. and P. assignees, to Edward Welch and his improvements middlings-purifiers, being for improvements and for patented machines B. Reynolds; to Jesse Wheeler and Ransom S. but that 37,319 37,320, 1863, letters-patent 6, bearing No. and No. date Jan. issued to Cochrane, flour, improvements bolting said infringed. for were not Appeal from the Court of the District of Supreme Columbia. court, The case is stated in the of the opinion Submitted on Cox, Mr. Walter S. printed arguments Mr. Blake, F. Charles and Mr. Mason for the and Rodney appellant, Mr. A. L. and Mr. Merriman Soward O. for the Cady ap- pellee. Bradley delivered the of the court.
Mr. Justice is a suit in instituted in the This Court of equity, Supreme and District of Columbia for relief injunction against various alleged infringement patents belonging com- dismissed, The bill and have complainants plainants. appealed. number, five, six in sued on are
The patents originally 1863, on the 13th of to the January, appellant 37,317, 37,318, 37,319, 37,320, and numbered respectively to an all related method 37,321. They improved bolting for the others flour, first for being general process, in the different of the rendered parts machinery improvements on the Three process. original carrying necessary surrendered, 37,318, 37,321, 37,317, were Nos. patents, 5,841, 1874, which reissues were numbered taken reissues and the 6,030, first 6,029, process, being 6,029, Reissue machinery. two portions 37,321, subse* numbered was also original place [Sup. Ct. surrendered, new and two reissued substituted patents quently’ therefor, numbered on the case has been infringe-
The question mainly argued ment, defendants constructed bolting apparatus using issued Edward P. Welch to letters-patent April, according to Jesse machines B. improvements upon which, as well as the pro- Wheeler Ransom S. Reynolds, contend, different from the cess radically employed, of Cochrane. apparatus to the A raised with jurisdic- question regard preliminary on a bill in tion of the court below to hear the case equity, in an action before a determination of the rights parties at law.. Court of the District Colum- Supreme powers circuit courts the same as those of the
bia in cases are See Revised Statutes relating the United States. Columbia, 764'. District sects. circuit courts were first invested with equity jurisdiction act of which declared that cases Feb.
in patent u *3 in as well should have original equity these courts cognizance, actions, controversies, suits, cases law, arising as at of all States, or to confirming under law of the United granting any to their the exclusive right respective authors or inventors discoveries; and bill in inventions, and upon .any- writings, cases, such in should filed aggrieved by any party equity, to the course and to injunctions, according have authority grant &e. courts of of equity,” principles the seventeenth re-enacted in sec- law was substantially This of section law fifty-fifth tion of July 1870, to assess in powers damages of that July special act. also conferred latter by cases equity courts had 1819 was the act of passed, Before circuit' to at law recover brought of actions damages cognizance rela- but not of suits in in of patents, equity the infringement of differ- to citizens .thereto, unless happened tion the parties 379; v. Van Ingen, on Pat. Livingston ent States. Phillips that act 54; id. 447. Under Paine, Redfield, Sullivan 1 it bills became acts in which incorporated, subsequent have and account constantly for injunction, discovery, equity Oct. v. 1876.] sustained,
been action without at law. any previous frequently Grier, circuit, Mr. decided As said Justice a case at “ that, It is true the chancellor will England, generally cases, a final and when the perpetual injunction grant denies answer without sending validity to law to have decided. But that even there parties question is not is a the rule universal: it more on con practice founded venience than in the sound rests discre necessity. always tion of court. A trial at law is ordered a chancellor to his conscience, inform demand .not because either party may as or to that a court right, incompetent judge equity States, or fact titles. thó United questions legal no means so as in practice England.” general Goodyear Wall. Jr. 296. the case of Sickles Day, Subsequently, Co., 3 id. the same Gloucester Manufacturing judge “ said : The courts have United States their jurisdiction statute, over controversies this nature do not exercise And, court of law.” after merely ancillary quoting “ statute, he such proceeds: Having original cognizance, not, . . . the cases, courts' of United States do in all require title, Verdict law on the before a final granting injunction, or concede a to have issue as right every party every tried originality infringement by jury.” true, Justice Grier position Mr. undoubtedly whether a ease shall be first tried at is a law matter of discre- tion, ; and not of and in this matter jurisdiction the courts of States, the United courts cases, sitting equity s„end are much less than the courts are to' disposed English par- ties ato before jury decide the merits. assuming
But the counsel the defendants the Revised suggest have Statutes *4 preserved enactments previous entirety on this but have omitted the of subject, vesting original cogni- zance in circuit courts as courts sitting equity patent of consideration, however, cases. From a careful of the sec- tions of Revised Statutes-on we think that no subject, intention is evinced to make law. The any change orig- inal enactments are into distinct and somewhat separated parts, condensed; but the of is substance them retained. sect. By 629, the circuit courts invested are with jurisdiction, among “ Ninth, of all suits at law or in equity things, arising or laws United under the States.” patent copyright “
And, 4921, declared, that sect. it is several courts under the vested with of cases laws jurisdiction arising patent to the shall have course grant injunctions according power &c., of of courts equity,” principles following precisely of last used in revision of act previous language th\r of this of the law. The as broad jurisdiction branch grant be, the mode as it could well exercisipg general same terms as precisely previous prescribed statutes. case, see no reason for we special sending present a law or to a for trial. no such to court of There jury
case witnesses, on the issues depending upon credibility to make the case of easier intricacy machinery, susceptible to the truth before such a tri- solution or greater certainty than it admits of when consideration of bunal presented be if would, desirable all cases of this chancellor. a perhaps, to a commission of be referred sort could intelligent experts thereon, their with their men report practical reasons, of the court. A the final action proceeding mind of act in the Congress passing kind was probably of five reference to 16, 1875, per- authorizing jury of Feb. adapted courts nor juries perfectly sons. Neither ordinary - and scientific The of mechanical questions. to the investigation however, its to decide the case discretion below, exercised court sort, and their merits, of a its without aid jury convinced, If we were how- not appeal. aetion ground decided, and could be ever, the case was properly reference, undoubt- such a we might decided without properly discretion, it to the our remand own exercise of in the edly, see ques- But we nothing for that purpose. court below such a course should adopted. raised require tions on on this case sued granted The principal reissue being'a .of 21st April, 1868. The orig- on 6th January, F. William 5,841. the reissue 37,317, numbered inal flour. in manufacturing for a invention alleged “ inven- : The object my his says specification, patentee, *5 Oct. 786 ¶. 1876.] COCHBANE DEENEB. to flour; tion was increase the the best of of production quality and consisted in from the meal my improvement separating flour, the first and then the superfine pulverulent impurities with the of the mingled flour-producing portions middlings- ’ ’ ‘ ‘ meal, so as to which, make white or purified middlings, rebolted, when flour, would reground white pure yield which, when added to the would the superfine, improve quality flour union, of from their of instead resulting deteriorating j;he its as had heretofore been the the case quality, when middlings flour was with the superfine.”. mingled process employed the result here indicated then described. producing consists in meal series passing ground through bolting- meshes, reels clothed with cloth finer which progressively flour and retard the of the finer pass superfine escape time, and, at the same lighter impurities; meal subjecting to blasts or currents of air introduced hollow perforated shafts furnished with so force of the pipes disposed blast act close to the surface of the may bolting-cloth; bolting-chest opening top escape air, and of the finer and therewith, lighter particles through arrested, a chamber where the are whilst particles floor sides of each close, of the chest are so as to compartment made of the air in than prevent atherdirection escape any through means, the said flour is opening. superfine separated, By and the fine an'd and. light impurities, specks ordinarily adhere the flour there- middlings degrade produced from, of; rid when the are now got middlings sepa- rated the other meal, are white and portions clean, and rebolted, so as to capable being reground flour even superfine equal produce quality superior the first instalment. described; is the
This but the claims that process patentee limited to it is not He special arrangement machinery. use currents of interior admits air in the prior reels, hollow, shafts, introduced means of for perforated back keeping speck, increasing purpose quantity flour; but not for the middlings prepara- superfine purifying therefore, does con- His regrinding. improvement, tory air, sist drafts and currents of as a using VOL. IV. blast,
whole, and the carry- comprising application off of the fine middlings purified ing whereby impurities, from the other after being separated preparatory regrmding *6 parts. use this
The defendants process. They they deny stated,, flour, means as before the purify middlings issued to to of machines constructed letters-patent according Welch, Edward P. improvements April, and Ransom S. machines to B. Wheeler Jesse Rey nolds. the
In this reels are not used middlings, purifying process, or sieve is used a flat and screen inclined vibrating but slightly meal is passed, over which purpose; ground a of blown whilst to air through currents subjected passing screen; series of situated close underneath pipes an the screen and through currents pass up through opening chamber, them of into a the chest top carrying~with are ren- finer and middlings whereby lighter impurities, into of white, reground dered clean and being capable close on is made flour. The tight superfine bolting-chest of so that the currents at the sides top, except opening that exit. air be forced escape may or screen use of a flat sieve Now, place except between difference substantial reels, is difficult to see addition, brushes, use, in methods. The defendants these two screen, so as to under keep on the which revolve side free; this is clean and but thereof merely meshes constantly of the two addition, not affect the pro- which does identity an the same have We substantially in other cesses particulars. middlings preparatory regrinding by method cleaning them whilst currents air passed through means chamber, close chest or confined a bolted, and whilst being above for an escape chamber said opening said become air and the which they impurities currents thus The purified reground loaded. middlings being — new, flour of a rebolted, a superior grade, superfine producing result. useful, valuable and highly reel for bolt- of a flat screen instead use revolving The It is mere matter of form. middlings cleaning ing Cqchrane Deéner. 7S7 Oct. 1876.] and, form, be an an patentable improved perhaps, may but it is at most an improvement. improvement; screen of the air-currents upward through forcing film meal carried on it and downward fall of against meal, them instead forcing through bolting-cloth meal, also direction with the matter of same mere form, substance of the does not belong process. of the currents of air both cases is
substantial operation them on the and bear take aggre- up light impurities away flue, them thus to current separate through open gate too, This, on be an improvement middlings. may method; but it is Cochrane’s improvement. only admit that the has The defendants revo- produced flour; manufacture of attribute thát lution in the to their be as revolution improvements. may they say, But it cannot be denied due these. seriously greatly invention lies at the bottom of these that Cochrane’s improve- them, ments, and was itself of beneficial is involved capable use, to such use. It had all the elements and cir- and was put *7 the and cannot be cumstances sustaining necessary defendants, the even though supplemented by by appropriated and material important and enveloped very improvements their own. the that and Mc- do patent Cogswell We perceive Kiernan, if valid at all as which will against point (a considered affects the be more the hereafter), fully question is not at all for the That which Coch- least. patent process valid, if, his claims. If rane using process, Cochrane McKiernan, secured to to use device Cogswell obliged any from not detract in the his own it does slightest degree patent. others, include within it' and each One invention many may at the time. This be valid only consequence may .same follows, each inventor is from inventions precluded using own, to his license from the prior except (cid:127)made and his His invention and thereof. patent owners equally if inde- as were entitled to infringement, protection with them. connection pendent may be of the a That patentable, irrespective particu-. process used, If form of the lar he.disputed. instrumentalities cannot . be that a one a certain substance is to be steps process to a not be at reduced all material whatinstru powder, may to effect ment or is used whether a object, machinery hammer, mortar, or a mill. Either be pestle may out; but if the is not confined to that pointed patent particular machine, tool or the use of the others be an would infringe- ment, the same. A is a general process being mode of treatment of certain materials to produce given act, acts, result. It is or a series of performed an. transformed and reduced to different be subject-matter' useful, If it is as state or new and. thing. patentable just law, the' piece language patent machinery. an art. The out as suitable to perform pointed machinery ; new or whilst not be process may patentable pro- may new, cess itself be an new produce entirely may altogether that certain should" be result. The process requires things order; but substances, certain and in a certain done with be of to be used tools consequence. doing may secondary come next to be considered. The machine patents number is a reissue of the As to original which least, 37,318, the last number defendants infringe, clearly claim, words: “In combination which in these chest, and the in a suc- screen incased perforated blast-pipe sides of the screen, on to operate opposite arranged tion-pipe, as set forth.” substantially order, next
As to namely, original patent the use of relates rvhat number specially the meal into calls chest introducing pump patentee reels, used whilst the valve defendants arrangement combination with said equivalent general may the. themselves, Cochrane, taken described yet, pump' same, are not machinery, they pieces separate one is not an of a other. infringement usé *8 Moore, 332; Curtis, Curtis, C. C. 279. Nor sect. Foster the next defendants patent, that the can we infringe perceive 37,320, combinations of which is for number certain machinery, therein, dead-air' chambers slotted including bolting-reels,' meal, &c., board for shaft-, and discharging reciprocating to describe more particularly. whiclx unnecessary Oct. 1876.] 6,594 6,595, numbered and
The two remaining patents, number are for combinations reissues original for flour required bolting machinery essential parts and the middlings according general process purifying The claim of the described in the first patent. principal origi- for chamber, nal was condensing collecting on air, which the currents leaving bolting-chest, through make their where leave the fine with escape, particles they claim, said, which become loaded. This found they broad, chamber, inasmuch to be too as a somewhat collecting similar, connection, used in had been another not in the though combinations in Cochrane’s The presented bolting process. surrendered, therefore, and the two original patent, patents thereof, now under consideration were issued place claiming the use of chamber combination with the vari- collecting reissue, ous material bolting parts apparatus. claims, number 6,594, contains three number one claim.
The first of reissue claim number for the collecting chamber in combination aforesaid) (used purpose bolter, and valves for feeding air-pipes, delivering Now, meal without therewith. air to allowing pass although reel, use flat bolter instead and use defendants different kinds of valves for the meal without feeding delivering the air the combination pass, allowing they employ yet devices described in this use the claim. They collecting chamber for the same as that out in the pointed purpose bolter, use connection with a valves air-pipes, in. without meal air feeding allowing delivering therewith, each the same pass separate effecting purpose, and all combined the same effecting general purpose, the like are intended Cochrane’s parts accomplish bolting some of of' apparatus. Though corresponding parts combination, in this are not same machinery, designated and, óf form the two point bolting apparatuses, sepa- considered, could not be as identical or con- rately regarded combination, same flicting, yet purpose manner, the same effecting substantially purpose are the of each other in claim regard. equivalents *9 v. Deener. not is confined to form of patent any particular ajppa valves,
ratus, for embraces example) regard gen- (in meal without valves for-feeding delivering erally any are of there- air to pass We through. allowing opinion, is fore, the combination here claimed infringed used defendants. apparatus to make examination unnecessary separate claims, in the two under consideration. other embraced patents of the same observations which we are all susceptible They our to the first claim. have made regard, opinion, do them. infringe .defendants n to raised with Cochrane’s But a regard priority question June, on the 12th of A was invention. patent granted McKiernan for im- C. John to Mortimer Cogswell which, contended, in ventilated bolting-chests, provements as and nullifies Cochrane’s patented antedates apparatus 37,321, and in the two in the him reissues patent original -This before mentioned. thereof (of Cogswell examined, and find that it contain we have does McKiernan) reissues; embraced those of the elements (be- five namely bolter, used), which sides the bolting-chest always inside extending bolting- contains perforated air-pipe therein, blast of air and a collect- reel, the fan producing the flour carried off blast. arresting ing-chamber the meal to cool simply keep bolting- The purpose The flour which chamber cloths collected dry. the chest. The contained parts apparatus returned those which combination Cochrane’s áre said, reissue which was reissue separated, of this and McKiernan. 6,594 on account Cogswell reissue embrace combinations patented and McKiernan’s contained patentand Cogswell in> parts void, this reissue is defendants contend that 37,321. the original patent sustained by think, is untenable. Cochrane’s we ap- The latter position, model, described in his exhibited in his original paratus, time, same in the series of taken out patents and referred same relation general process, to make 37,321, contained all the go parts Oct.. 1876.] 6,694. reissue number no claimed in We see
combination therefore, reason, such reissue was not why properly Office, fact, to him the Patent the claim a much being, narrower one than that original patent. 6,596. But, observations to reissue number
The same apply *10 that, stated, the as to as before elements of the com- particular claimed in are found bination McKiernan’s Cogswell machine; if entitled this is over Coch- precedency rane’s, 6,595 is reissue number void. He contends that it is that, fact, entitled to such not precedency; Cogswell and McKiernan obtained a for his surreptitiously inven- tion. have examined the evidence We to this matter, relating and are satisfied that claimed improvement invention; his and McKiernan Cogswell obtained Tiim; their of it from and that there is knowledge nothing with their connected invalidate ought the re- issued patent question.
A French dated 27th patent, September, one also referred to as the combina- Perigault, anticipating tions in these But shown that patents. Cochrane’s date, invention was made before that actually point ' not the act of pressed argument. By foreign in order to invalidate an American patent, must ante- date the invention patented. is, conclusion
Our re- process, being 5,841, issue number and the reissued several com- patents devices, binations of mechanical numbered 6,030, respectively 6,594, are valid and are patents, infringed by defendants; and that the two named in the bill patents numbered complaint, respectively the defendants. infringed by reversed, complainants,
Decree and cause remanded with directions to enter a decree and to therein in proceed with this conformity opinion. Clifford,
Mr. Justice whom concurred Mr. Justice Strong, dissenting.
I dissent from the of the court in judgment — case, for the reasons: following
792 Davis Indiana. v.
1. Because the means employed by mechanical respon- tp dents effect the result different from substantially those described patent. complainants’ 2. Because the process employed respondents man- ufacture the described product materially substantially different from the patented process com- employed by plainants.
3. Because the do not respondents combination infringe of mechanism complainants. employed 341; v. 16 Pet. Prouty Ruggles, Black, Vance 1 Campbell, 428; Wells, ill v. 22 Wall. G 26. 4. Because do respondents infringe process pat ented the rule complainants, that a like being, process, combination, is an and that entirety, charge infringe in such ment a case is not made out unless alleged that the entire proved respondents. employed by 194; Abbott, Howe v. Rees, C. C. Gould Story, Wall. 193.
Davis Indiana. Supreme of Indiana decided in moneys 1. The Court this case that the congressional State, arising township in each that from section all of county treasury by paid trustee, which are to into school form part county required fund which the auditor is of the school to distribute that, townships county, doing, the various so he is bound “ 4, proviso in the act of March in no case shall the con- township gressional fund be distribution, Bueh diminished and diverted township,” this court affirms the decision. ruling Springfield Quick, Township court 2. This adheres 22 How. right congressional that the of the inhabitants of the several townships moneys township that State to such for the use of schools in the where protected by sufficiently proviso. lies is section of tbe to tbe Court State of Indiana. Supreme Ebbob of tbe Tbe case is stated in tbe court.
Submitted on Mr. Hill for printed arguments by Balph tbe error, S. Stansifer, Mr. contra. plaintiff delivered tbe tbe opinion court. Mr. Milleb Justice States, act United In- Congress admitting State, declared that diana sixteenth section of a every