Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/527

512 FEDERAL REPORTER. �figuring the ping, therefore one could not be exchanged for another, and it could be removed by the consumer when that part of the plug should be reached, and which would not affect the quality of thft tobacco at all. This could not be wrought out from the means at hand before without thought and oontrivance enough to warrant the decision of the patent-office that they constituted invention. No one had done this before him. Therefore, as the case now stands, the patent must be adjudged to be valid. With the reissue valid there is no question about infringement. �Let there be a decree for an injunction and an account according to the Jrayer of the bill, with costs. ���Satles, Ex'r, v. Lodisville City R. Co. �(Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. November 15, 1881.) �1. Lbtters Patent — Extknded Term — Statuts of Limitation. �Where the statute of limitation provides that all actions shall be brought during the term for which the letters patent shall be granted or extended, or within six years after the expiration thereof, the lapse of six years after the expiration of the original term is a good defence to an action for the recovery of damages for tfie infringement of a patent-right during such term, though the term bas been extended subsequently, and the statute has not yet run as to such extended term. The original term and the extended term are two distinct terms. �Babe, D. J. This is an action on the case to recover damages for an alleged infringement of a patent-right. The patent is for an "improvement in railroad car-brakes." This patent was issued July 6, 1852, and was reissued and extended July 6, 1866, for the term of seven years. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant used this pat- ent car-brake from July 6, 1864, until the expiration of the extended term — July 6, 1873. The defendant pleads the lapse of five years, and relies upon the Kentucky statute of limitation in bar of the action. The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the defendant has amended his plea by pleading the lapse of six years after the expiration of the original term of the patent, and relying upon the statute of limitation passed by congress and approved July 8, 1870. �The parties have agreed to the facts, and the only question for the court to decide is the applicability of the statute of limitation. The Kentucky statute of limitation does not apply to this case ; because, if for no other reason, an act of congress has prescribed the limita- ��� �