Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/121

106 FEDKSAL SEFOBTEB. �Ondekdonk V. Panning and another. �{Circuit Court, E. D. New York. Julj 1, 1881.) �1. IiBTTEiis Patent — Lemon Sqxthezeus — Infringesient. �Letters patent No. 217,519, granted to Josephine P. Fanning and Isaac Will- iams, for an improvement in lemon squeezers, being a patent for a combi- nation, one of whose essential elements is a bed on which the lemon is to rest while subjected to pressure, with holes in it to allow the juice of the lemon to pass through into a conceatrator below, are not infringed by a machine of which the bed on which the lemon rests while subjected to pressure is solid, with a grooved or corrugated surface so constructed that the juice is conducted to the edge of the bed, where it passes into the concentrator around the bed by running between the edge of the bed and the rim of the concentrator. �Foster, Wentworth e Poster, for compliinant. �E. H. Brmm, for defendant. �Benbdict, D. J. This action is founded upon a patent owned by the plaintiff, No. 217,519, originally issued to Josephine P. Fanning and Isaac Williams, as assignee of the defendant John Fanning, for an improvement in lemon sqaeezers. The allegation of the bill is that the defendant makes and sells a lemon squeezer similar to that desoribed in the plaintifE's patent. The defendaint, among other things, denies that the machine he makes is similar to that secured by the patent. �The patent sued on has been before thia court in a former action between these same parties. In that case the infringing machine was different from the machine now complained of, and then a pre- liminary injunction was granted the plaintiff upon the ground that the oireumstances attending the salo of the patent by the defendant to the plaintiff rendered it proper to compel the defendant to refrain from making machines like those there complained of duiing the pendency of the suit. This was the extent of the adjudication made in the former action. The final decree subsequently entered in that action was upon the consent of the parties, and not upon any deter- mination of the court, either in respect to the validity of the patent sued on, or the character of the alleged infringement. �In the present case, the questions respecting the validity of the plaintiff's patent are the samc as in the former action, but the ques- tion of infringement is different. The latter question is the only one necessary to be determined on this occasion, in the view I take of the case, and this opinion will therefore proceed upon the assump- tion that the patent sued on secures to the plaintiff an exclusive ��� �