Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/926

912 FEDERAL REPORTER. �defendant's structure existed before the patentee! invention, and there- fore that thd defendant's structure was not the same as the plain- tiflFs'. In this view no notice in the answer was necessary as to names, as the testiniony was admissible under the issue of non- infringement. �Nothing is shown to invalidate the plaintiff's reissue, properly con- strued; but, in view of the original patent, the reissue cannot be so construed as to cover the defendant's device. Moreover, the existence of the devices testified to by McGauley and Eead requires that the reisBue shall be limited to covering sections strictly attached and requiring cutting to detach them ; and, in view of such limitation, the defendant has done no more than was done before. Putting in the cross-pieces to keep the detached pieces in position is not within the patented invention. �The bill is dismissed, with costs. ���CoLLioNON and others v. Hates. Virmit Qowrt, N. D. New Ywk. May 7, 1881.) �1. Lbtthes Patent — Folding Chaibs — Infkingbmbnt. �Letters patent No. 96,778, for an improvement in folding chairs, granted November 16, 1869, to Claudius O. and Nicliolas Collignon, are infringed, as to claim 1, by chairs made under and in accordance with letters patent No. 221,- 062, granted to the defendant, October 28, 1879. �Z. Infbingbmbnt— Formai, ORAKaBs. �Where the same resuit is eflected by corresponding parts and by an identity in the modo of operation, mere formai changes will not avoid infringement. �S. Pbbliminaet Injunction — Delat. �Where the patentee gave prompt notice to an infringer to cease infringing, and, in the period of two years intervening between the time when the fact of the infringement flrst became known to him and the date of the commencement of legal proceedings, repeated the notice three times, and where, during this time, the business engagements of the patentee were many and pressing, and no affirmative encouragement was erer given by him to the infringer, hdd, that the right to a preliminary injunction, in a case otherwise plain, will not be aft'ected by the delay. �Blnir, Snow & Rudd, for plaintiff. �R. H. Duell, for defendant. �Blatchford, g. J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction, founded on letters patent No. 96,778, granted November 16, 1869, (erroneously stated in the bill as October 16, 1879,) to Nicholas Collignon and Claudius 0. Collignon, for an "improvement in folding chairs." The specification says : ��� �