Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/867

 GKBENWOOD V. BBACHER. 859 �•which the testimony bas inspired, that the defendant bas been acting in bad faitb. Tbere is some reason for believing that, under an assumed name, be obtained from Mr. Bigelow most, if not ail, of the essential devices and combinations on wbicb he based his claims in the two patents. Wbetber tbis be 80 or not, it is clear from his own affidavit, read in connec- tion -witb the evidence of the complainant on tbis motion, that ever since the decision of the interference case, establisbing the invalidity of his patents as against Bigelow, be bas bela out to the world that his large business in bat sweats was under the protection of these patents. �Tbe witness, G. W. Born, purcbased of bim in Septem- ber, 1879, bat sweats, with the concealed stitch, wbicb were marked: "T. W. Bracher; patented July 23 and December 17,1878; improvements ; patent applied for." �His circulars to the trade bave been exhibited, in wbicb these patents are recited, and under wbicb be claims exclu- sive rights and privileges, and guarantees parties manufac- turing bat sweats under his licenses against ail suits for infringements. �Mr. Van Gelden, also, testifies that be is well acquainted witb the defendant Bracher; that be is carrying on business under the firm name of T. W. Bracher Hat Sweat Co., and tbat he represents to the trade that he is manufacturing bat sweats under the patents of July 23 and December 3, 1878, and is fuUy protected by them, be being the original inventer of the improvements therein deseribed. �Mr. Gore, of the firm of Gore, Sparron & Co., states tbat, until quite reeently, be purcbased ail the prepared sweats used by his firm of the licensees of the Bigelow patent, and that be was induced to change and buy the Bracher sweats in consequence of assurances from T. W. Bracher that be was manufacturing the same sweats under his patents of July 23 and December 3, 1878, wbicb protected bim and his customers against the owners of the Bigelow patent. �Turning to the affidavit of the defendant, to ascertain what reply he bas made to ail tbis proof, we find that he is silent. He does not seem to regard it of sufficient importance to ��� �