Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/376

 'à6e JFBDEBAL EBPOETEE. �ruain Hnes of the letter. Nothing of the exact kind is shown in these exhibits, nor is there aaything which can be regarded as proof that the thing patented was kno-wn to others before the invention patented was made by the patentees. Many attempts are made to prove that fact, but the proofs ail fall short of meeting the requirement. When the defence of want of novelty is made, it ia the duty of the tribunal, whether court or jury, to give it effect; but sueh proof or testimony should be weighed with care, and never be allowed to prevail where it is unsatisfactory, nor unless its probative force is sufficient to outweigh the prima fade presumption arising from the introduction of the patent. Wood v. Bolling Mill, 4 Fisher, 550, 560; Parham v. Sewing Machine Co. Id. 468, 482 ; Hawes V. Antisdel, 8 0. G. 6852. �Inventera may, if they can, kçep their inventions secret, and if ,they do it is a mistake to suppose that any delay to ap- ply: for a patent will f orf eit their right to the same, or pre- sent any bar to a subsequent application. Nor does any different rule prevail in the case pf a design patent. Delay less than for the period of t'^o years constitutes no defence in any case; but the respondents may allege and prove that the invention in -q,uestion had been in public use or on sale more than two years prior to the application of the party fpr a patent, and if they allege, and prove that defence they are entitled to prevail in the suit. Due allegation in that regard is made in this case, but the record contains no proof to sup- port it, and it must be overruled. From ail which it follows that the patent is a good and valid patent, and that the com- plainants, if they have proved the alleged infringement, are entitled to a decree in their favor for the profits made by the respondents in the violation of their exclusive right to make, use, and vend the improvement secured by the letters patent. Prior to the alleged infringement, the complainants allege that they were in the exercise of the fuU and exclusive enjoy- ment of the franchise granted by the patent; and they charge that the respondents, having fuU knowledge of the premises, and of their exclusive right, have, without license, manufac- tured, usod, and sold, and still continue to manufacture, use, ����