Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/870

 862 FEDERAL BKPOBTEB. �Fentlabqb V. Beeston and another. (Circuit Court, E. D. New York. April 13, 1880.) �Patent — ^Injonction — Licbnsb. — An injunction founded upon consent, enjoining the use of an invention, ia not necessarily deprived of vitality by the granting of a conditional license. �Samb — Attachment — Suit Pendinq in State Coubt. — An attaohment will not be issued for the violation of such injunction vehile a suit is pending in a state court of competent jurisdiction, concerning the va- lidity of the agreement upon which the decree for the injunction was founded, and in relation to the legality of the revocation of the license which authorized the use of the invention. �Preston Stevenson, for Pentlarge. �Tracy Catlin Brodhead, for Beeston. �Benediot, J. This case cornes before the court, upon a motion on the part of the defendants, for the stay of a pro- ceeding instituted by the plaintiff in this court, to punish the defendants for contempt, because of a violation by them of a perpetuai injunction, whereby they were restrained from making a certain form of bungs for caaks, described in a pat- ent issued to this plaintiff, and known as re-issue No. 5937. �Of the many proceedings had in this court between these parties, arising eut of this patent, the following must be mentioned, in order to an understanding of the questions pre- Bented by this motion. �In April, 1877, the plaintiff filed his bill in this court against the above named defendants, in which he set f orth the issuing of the said patent, and the infringement thereof by the defendants, and prayed to be awarded damages for said infringement, and a perpetuai injunction to restrain the de- fendants from using his invention in the future. After issue had been joined in that action, and on the third day of Janu- ary, 1878, an agreement of compromise was entered into between the plaintiff on the one side, and the defendants on the other, in which it was provided, among other things — First, that the defendants should admit the validity of the plaintiff's patent, and his exclusive right to the invention therein described, and that the defendants should cease in- fringing upon his rights as sole owner of the said invention ; ��� �