Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/626

ILLINGWOETH ». SPAULDINS. 611 �respondent. Gurtis, Law of Patents, § 414. Long possession, how- ever, can hardly be set up here, nor are former reooveries claimed. Upon the ■vrhole, we are of the opinion that the complainant has net made out a case, under the evidence submitted, that would war- rant the granting of a preliminary injanotiou, and the motion is therefore denied. ���ILLINOWOETH V. SPAOTDINa. �DoYiiB ». Thb Same. �(Otrouit Court, D. New Jersey. December 24, 1881.) �1. Lbtteeb Patbnti— Suit for Infringembnt — Dbfence. �Whether a knowledge, by persons residing in this country, of a foreign use of a patent is a defence to a suit for infringement, quart. �In Equity. �«7. C. Clayton, for complainant. �A. Q. Keasbey and Francis Forbes, for defendants. �Nixon, D. J. Two motions are made in the above-stated cases, •which, however, involve the same question. The defendants move that they be allowed to amend their answer, in the case of Illingworth V. SpavMing, by inserting the following allegation : �" That the said letters patent "So. 166,700 [on which the suit of the com- plainant is founded] are void, for that the same thing, or every material part thereof , claimed therein as new, was, prier to the date of the said alleged in- vention by the said John Illingworth, known to the followlng-named persons in this country, viz.: John Hogan, who resides in the city of Brooklyn, state of New York, by whom it had been used in the city of Sheffleld, England, and who knew of its use by J. & Riley Carr & Co. at said city of SheiHeld, Eng- land. * * *" �Other names are inserted, averring the same knowledge in sub- stantially the same language. �The complainant moves, in the case of Doyle against the same defendants, to strike out similar allegations in the answer filed therein. �It was intimated upon the argument that the object of makingand arguing these motions, at this stage of the proceedings, was tO obtain the ruling of the court upon the question whether such averments, if proved, would be regarded as a defence in a suit for infringement. �The precise question to be determined is the meaning of the expression "known or used in this cOutitry^," as it occurs in section ��� �