NOTICE. Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, subd. 15, 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], which confers on courts of bankruptcy general powers to make such orders and issue such process as may be necessary for the enforcement of the act, in connection with Rev. St. § 716 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 580], vests a court of bankruptcy with power to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of ne exeat Entry of judgment, see "Judgment," § 3. to restrain a bankrupt within the district, where a proper showing of its necessity is made.In re Cohen (D. C.) 999. Of copyright, see "Copyrights," § 1. NEGLIGENCE. Causing death, see "Death," § 1. Conformity of federal courts to state practice as to negligence in admiralty cases, see "Courts," § 4. State laws as rules of decision in federal courts, By particular classes of parties. Condition or use of particular species of property, See "Explosives"; "Railroads," § 1; "Street Railroads,' § 2; "Telegraphs and Telephones," § 1. Goods shipped by vessel, see "Shipping," § 4. Contributory negligence. NUNC PRO TUNC. OBSTRUCTIONS. To navigation, see "Navigable Waters," § 1. OFFICERS. Bribery, see "Bribery." Particular classes of officers. See "Attorney General"; "District and Prose- OPINION EVIDENCE. In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 6. OPTIONS. To renew license to use and sell patented articles, see "Patents," § 6. ORDERS. Of person injured by collision, see "Collision," Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and $ 6. Of person injured by operation of street railroad, see "Street Railroads," § 2. Of servant, see "Master and Servant," § 2. § 1. Actions. While contributory negligence is a defense in the federal courts, the burden of proof is on the defendant; the presumption being that due care was used. Ward v. Dampskibselskabet Kjoebenhaven (D. C.) 502. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See "Bills and Notes." 136 F.-67 Error." ORDINANCES. Municipal ordinances, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1. PARENT AND CHILD. Laws authorizing appointment of guardians for minors having no guardians appointed by will or deed as denying privileges or immunities of parents, see "Constitutional Law," § 2. Parents have no right to the custody of their infant children, except subject to the paramount right of the state, to be exercised whenever where the two are indistinguishable in their deemed for the best interest of the children.- characteristics.-Williams Calk Co. v. NeverWadleigh v. Newhall (C. C.) 941. slip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. PAROL EVIDENCE. In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 5. PARTIES. In actions by or against trustees, see "Trusts," Pleading as to parties in bill in equity, see "Eq- PARTITION. Citizenship of parties ground of jurisdiction of federal courts, see "Courts," § 3. Conclusiveness of judgment adjudging rights of heirs on subsequent suit for partition, see "Judgment," § 5. PARTNERSHIP. A design patent held an anticipation of a subsequent patent of the same inventor, when everything found in the one is portrayed in the other. Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. Merely bringing together old devices in a combination in which each performs its old function, without producing any new result by reason of the combination, is not invention.-SelfSealing Can Co. v. Hocker (C. C.) 418. Evidence of prior use, to overcome the presumption of the validity of a patent, must be of sufficient weight to overcome every reasonable doubt.-Atwood-Morrison Co. v. Sipp Electric & Machine Co. (C. C.) 859. Under Rev. St. § 4897 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3386], the Commissioner of Patents is without authority of law to issue a patent on an application filed more than two years after the allowance of a patent for the same invention on a prior application by the same party, which has been forfeited for nonpayment of fees.Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Effect of discharge of partner in bankruptcy, Electrical Instrument Co. (C. C. A.) 599. see "Bankruptcy," § 8. PASSENGERS. See "Carriers," § 1; "Explosives." PATENTS. Consolidation of corporations under contract re- § 1. Subjects of patents. A horseshoe calk, the whole value of which consists in the uses to which it can be put, cannot be covered by a design patent.-Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. The utility intended by Rev. St. § 4929 [U S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3398]. authorizing the granting of a patent for any useful and original shape of any article of manufacture, is artistic, and not practical.-Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. § 2. Patentability. A prior publication, in a paper patent or otherwise, will not negative the novelty of an invention, unless it describes a complete and operative invention, capable of being put into practical operation, or contains such a disclosure of the invention that any omission would ordinarily be supplied by one skilled in the art. -Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Standard Stopper Co. (C. C.) 199. A design patent will render void a mechanical patent, subsequently issued to the same inventor within two years, as a double patent, A bill to obtain a patent, under Rev. St. § 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392], held demurrable for failure to show that complainant was the original inventor.-Prindle v. Brown (C. C.) 616. An applicant for a patent, who failed to appeal from the adverse decision of the Commissioner to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as provided by Act Feb. 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3391], cannot maintain a suit to obtain a patent under Rev. St. § 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392].-Prindle v. Brown (C. C.) 616. § 4. Requisites and validity of letters patent. The fact that a prior design patent is invalid, because a subject is not within the law, will not save a subsequent mechanical patent patenting.-Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip for the same device from constituting a double Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. 5. Term. Where two patents are issued on the same day by the Patent Office, and there is no other evidence of seniority between them than such as appears from their several numbers, the earlier in number must be regarded the senior and the earlier in publication.-Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Stopper Co. (C. C. A.) 841. $6. Title, conveyances, and contracts. under a contract, where on the showing made In a suit to compel the assignment of patents there is a reasonable probability that complainant may succeed on the merits, he is entitled to a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo until a final hearing.-Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co. (C. C.) 272. Where a corporation owning certain patents, subject to licenses to sell and use, became insolvent, and its assets were transferred to another corporation, taking with notice of the licenses, the latter was bound thereby.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. A corporation, having succeeded to the rights of the licensor of the exclusive right to use and sell patented phonographs and graphophones, with notice of complainant's rights, held liable in equity for breach of covenant for invading the same. New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. Complainant, the exclusive licensee of the right to use and sell patented phonographs and graphophones, held not barred by laches from maintaining a suit against defendants for infringement of such license.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. An extension of the term of a patent does not inure to the transferee of a license, in the absence of language expressing such intention. New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. Licensee of the right to use and sell a patented article held entitled to a second extension of the license only until the expiration of the last improvement patents.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. A license to use and sell phonographs and graphophones, providing for a second renewal at the option of the licensee, held not to require the licensee to give notice of its election to exercise such option in order to entitle it to a renewal.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. Acts of a licensor of a right to use and sell patented phonographs and graphophones held a waiver of the obligation of the licensee, if any, to give notice of its election to exercise its option to accept a renewal of the license.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. O.) 600. A breach of covenant in an exclusive license to use and sell a patented article held not to work a forfeiture of the license, in the absence of a covenant to such effect in the license. New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. Under a license for the exclusive use and sale of phonographs and graphophones in a certain territory, the licensee's insolvency, in the absence of notice from the licensor, held not to operate as an abandonment of the licensee's contract rights.-New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. Under a license for the exclusive use and sale of patented phonographs and graphophones, the deposit of certain stock with a trust company for the benefit of the licensor held to render an extension license effective, regardless of a subsequent notice to the depositary not to deliver the stock to the licensor.New York Phonograph Co. v. Edison (C. C.) 600. for the tacks used, are not essential parts of the invention, and a variation therein does not avoid infringement, where the principle of the invention is appropriated.-M. Solmson & Co. v. Bredin (C. C. A.) 187. Where a patent is void on its face, or is shown to have been anticipated by prior patents, or where the presumption of novelty arising from the grant is overcome by proof of the prior art, or by facts of which the court may take judicial notice, it is the duty of the court to so instruct the jury, in an action at law for its infringement.-Roberts v. Bennett (C. C. A.) 193. The provisions of Rev. St. §§ 973, 4922 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 703, 3396], that, on recovery for infringement of part of a patent, etc., no costs shall be recovered, unless a proper disclaimer was filed in the Patent Office before the suit was brought, apply only to costs in the trial court; the allowance of costs in the appellate court being discretionary.-Kahn V. Starrels (C. C. A.) 597. In a suit for infringement of a patent, the Patents to issue the same may be pleaded as want of legal authority in the Commissioner of a defense.-Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co. (C. C. A.) 599. Whether the device of a later patent infringes an earlier patent is a question to be determined entirely from the proofs, there being no presumption either way, and depends upon whether it embodies a new and independent means for accomplishing the same result, or merely improvements on the primary invention. -Ries v. Barth Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 850. Permission granted a defendant to apply to bill, in the nature of a bill of review, to bring the trial court for leave to file a supplemental forward new evidence tending to show the invalidity of the Jackson patent, No. 433,791, for a coil clasp. Kelley v. Diamond Drill & Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 855. judged a patent invalid in an infringement suit, Where a Circuit Court of Appeals has addate directing the entry of a decree in conreversing the trial court, and has issued a manCircuit Court is limited to the entry of such formity with its decision, the authority of the decree, and it has no power to grant a rehearing, unless by leave of the appellate court.American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample (C. C. A.) 857. The attempt of a defendant, who has been enjoined from infringement of a patent, to see how closely he can imitate the patented device without infringement, is not looked upon with favor by the courts; and, where the new structure in fact infringes, it is no defense to contempt proceedings for violation of the injunction that defendant acted under advice of counsel.-Calculagraph Co. v. Wilson (C. C.) 196. Infringement cannot be avoided by simply constructing the patented thing so imperfectly that its utility is diminished, but such a colorable variation or change is merely evidence of an attempt at evasion, by narrowing the func tion of usefulness of the device infringed.Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Standard Stopper Co. (C. C.) 199. Similarity to the eye of a person of ordinary intelligence is what governs on the question of infringement of a design patent.-Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 210. Where claims for a new combination of old elements have been rejected by the Patent Office, and the action acquiesced in by the applicant, and only subsequently allowed when so amended as to contain a single new feature, the patent will be restricted to that new element.-Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Cutter Electric & Manufacturing Co. (C. C.) 217. Where, on application for preliminary injunction, complainant fails to disclose that one of the patents sued on has expired, it is sufficient ground, on dissolution, for giving actual damages. National Phonograph Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (C. C.) 231. Courts must refuse a preliminary injunction on affidavits against the conjoint use of two patents, one of which has expired. and the broader of which has not been adjudicated as to its features of invention.-National Phonograph Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (C. C.) 231. Use by a purchaser of a patented article in a different combination from that in which it was sold held not an infringement.-George Frost Co. v. Kora Co. (C. C.) 487. Defendant, in a suit for infringement, held not entitled therein to affirmative relief for unfair competition.-George Frost Co. v. Kora Co. (C. C.) 487. The issuance of a patent is evidence of the patentability, usefulness, and novelty of a device. Atwood-Morrison Co. v. Sipp Electric & Machine Co. (C. C.) 859. While there may be a patent for a machine to perform a process patented by another, its use in the practice of such process constitutes an infringement of the process patent.-Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford (C. C.) 870. One who manufactures and sells an element in an infringing baking powder, to be used by the purchaser in making such baking powder, is a contributory infringer, and liable equally with the purchaser for the profits or damages resulting from the sale of the infringing article.-Rumford Chemical Works v. New York Baking Powder Co. (C. C.) 873. § 8. Decisions on the validity, construction, and infringement of particular patents. ENGLISH. 1885. 208 593.320. Calculagraph 196 1886. 633,772. Electric circuit breaker. 218 416 666,583. Horseshoe calk 210 666,687. Cartridge belt .877, STS 1888. 2,910. Bottle stopper.. 8,638. Nail clipper 9,591. Weather strips machine 676,426. Electric circuit closing apparatus 678,500. Process of slacking lime. 850, 851 PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. 190, 191 Medical treatment for seamen, see "Seamen." ១១១ .199, 205 .866, 867 PIERS. 729,084. Switch-bracket 859 733,059. Weighing apparatus 891 See "Wharves." 756,177. Cartridge belt.. .874, 875, 877 756,178. Cartridge belt. 764,803. Cartridge belt ..874, 878 PLEA. By receiver, see "Receivers," § 1. 1. Recovery of payments. The word "knowingly," used in Civ. Code La. Where a contractor for public work supplied In criminal prosecution, see "Criminal Law," PLEADING. Conformity of federal courts to state practice, Review of discretion of court in rulings relat- See "Adverse Possession," § 2. In actions by or against particular classes of In particular actions or proceedings. Proceedings in equity to require grant of pat- To restrain obstruction of navigation, see "Nav- To restrain unfair competition, see "Trade- 1. Plea or answer, cross complaint, Act Pa. May 25, 1887 (P. L. 271), does not Actions of assumpsit held not to require affi- 2. Demurrer or exception. Under the practice prevailing in the courts of |