Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/449

DE FIjOBEZ V. RAINOLDS. 43& �oils, and other articles." The date of the patent was June 28, 1864, and on its face it was granted for the term of 17 years from the twenty-eighth day of June, 1864. The patent was re-issued to Pin- ner, November 1, 1864, the re-issue being granted, on its face, for the termof 17 years from the twenty-eighth day of June, 1864. This suit is founded on the re-issued letters patent. It was brought to a hearing on bill, answer, replication, and proofs, and on the twenty- ninth day of June, 1878, a decree was made by the court establish- ing the validity of the re-issue and the fact of infringement by the defendants, and referring it to a master to take an account of the profits made by the defendants by the infringement, and awarding a perpetuai injunction against the defendants from making, using, or selling cans or boxes eontaining the patented invention. �, There was introduced in evidence by the defendants a patent granted in England to Bouvet for the same inventions that are claimed in the re-issued United States patent. This English patent was sealed January 6, 1863, and dated September 19, 1863. Bouvet filed on the latter day a provisional specification with the English commis- sioners of patents, and on the nineteenth of March, 1863, he filed a full specification in the great seal patent office in England. The French patent to Bouvet, hereinafter referred to, was not introduced in evidence in the cause by either party. It covers the saine inven- tions which are claimed in the re-issued United States patent. It is now presented to the court, and on it and on all the pleadings, proofs, and papers in the case, and sundry new affidavits, a motioij is now made by the defendants before the court held by the circuit judge and Judge "Wheeler, that the said decree be amended by inserting therein a finding that the plaintiffs' re-issued patent is valid only for the term of 17 years from the date or publication of the prior patent for the same invention in France and England, and that the defendants be permitted to amend their answer by setting up said prior French patent ; that the decree and the proofs be opened, in prder to prove the same in the cause ; and that the injunction herein be suspended pendingsaid proof, or discharged; and for such other or further order or relief as may be just. �The answer to the bill sets up that by the act of, or by and with the consent of, Bouvet, the improvements described in the United States re-issued patent were patented in Great Britain with date of September 19, 1862, the Britigh patent thereon havingbeen sealed on the .sixth day of January, 1863, and that the said rorissued patent ��� �