Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/709

 702 FEDERAL REPORTBR �these circumstances it does not corne within the provisions of the statute denying costs, and no reason is apparent why costs should not be allowed as if nothing iiad been donc about a disclaimer. �Let a decree be entered for an injunction and an account, accordingly, with costs. ���Williams v. Thë Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh �R. Co. �(Circuit Court, N. D. New York. May 21, 1880.) �Patent — Inebingement — Compxttation of fbofits. �Ëdmwid Wetmore, for plaintiff. �West 6f Bond, for defendant. �Blatchford, C. J. In this case it was held (15 Blatchf. C. C. R. 201,) that the plaintiff's patent was valid, and that the defendant had infringed it. The patent is for an "im- provement in locomotive lamps." The object of the invention, as stated in the specification, is "to permit coal oil or kero- sene to be used in lamps for locomotive head-lights with suc- cess, and to obtain full advantage of its great light-produc- ing capacity." The patent contains 11 claims. Each claim is a claim to a combination of certain instrumentalities or members. There are eight of such members. The specifica- tion States that the patentee does not daim to be the original inventor of any one of such individual members, but that, al- though they had been used before his invention, such use was in combinations substantially different from those devised by him. �The defendant had used three forms of head-lights, one of which infringed five of the claims, one four of the claims, and one ail of the claims. The court found that the plaintiff's lamp was the first one which successfuUy burned kerosene oil in a locomotive head-light; and that his lamp had super- seded those previously in use, and was used on nearly ail the railroads in the United States, An account of profits and an ����