Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/828

 814 FESBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �2. Intekfbhencb — Fobmeb Suit— Jxjdgment.— Where the question of such interference was the subject of dispute in two distinct sults in two separate districts, and the defendant in the second suit defended the flrst suit, it was ?idd that the issues were the same in the two suits ; that the record in the former suit was proper evidence in the latter suit, and that the judgment in the flrst suit concluded tha defendant in the second suit. �In Equity. �George E. Betton, for plaintiff. �Jonathan Marshall, for defendant. �BiiATCHFORD, C. J. The plaintiff, as the owner of patent No. 114,711, granted May 9, 1871, to it on the invention of John Eiley, brings this bUl to have cancelled and annulled a patent, No. 100,354, granted March 1,1870, to one Baumann. The bni avers that on the application of Eiley for his pat- ent his application was put in interference with the patent of Baumann; that priority of invention was decided in favor of Eiley by the patent of&ce April 20, 1871 ; that the defend- ant owns the Baumann patent; that the plaintiff commenced suit at law in the Massachusetts district against two corpora- tions for infringing said patent by the use of certain material put on their boilers and pipes by the agent of the defendant in this suit; that said suits were defended by the defendant in this suit ; that it set up, among other defences therein, that the said invention of Eiley was not new by reason of said Bau- mann patent and invention; that the court, on a trial, sus- tained the Eiley patent by its decision, and the defendant is concluded thereby; and that the two patents are conflieting and interfering patents. The bill alleges that Eiley was the first inventer. �The answer alleges that Baumann was the first inventor. It does not deny that the suits in Massachusetts were de- fended by it, or that it set up, among other defences therein, that said invention of Eiley was not new by reason of said Baumann patent and invention. It denies that the Baumann patent formed any part of the issues on which the Massa- chusetts suit was tried; and that the defendant is not to be _prejudiced by reason of said suit, beciiuse it was not a party ����