Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/600

 588 FEDERAL REPORTER. expiration of the patent for the mechanism by ■which siicli process was carried on and such products produced, although such mechan- ism might be of no value except to carry on such patent process and manufacture such patent product. 3. Same— Patents fok Machiub aiid Pboduct — Patents Nos. 20,775, 29,561, 29,562, and Re-Issub 9,043. July 6, 1858, patent No. 20,775 was granted for "improveraent in sewing machines " for semng boot and shoesoles. August 14, 1860, two separ'ate patents were granted to the same patentee,— No. 29,561 for improvement in the construction of boots and shoes, and No. 29,562 for improvement in boots and shoes; the flrst of the two last named being for the process by which the machine covered by patent No. 20,776 manufactured the shoes, and the second for the resuit or product of such process. Before their expiration they were ail ex- tended, — the machine patent for seven j'ears from July 6, 1872, and the process and product patents for seven years from August 14, 1874. The process patent extended (No. 29,561) was afterwards surrendered, and re-issue No. 9,043 issued for theunexpired term. Hdd, that the right of the public to use the machine patent upon the expiration of the extended letters thereon did not carry with it a right to use it for the manufacture of shoes covered by the procesS or product pat- , euts during their unexpired term, though nothing eould be manufac- -tured vith such machine except the patented product. 4 Samk— Embbacing Impeovements in Oke or More Patents— Di8- ' 'cbetion op commissionbb. Whether a given invention or improvement shall be embraced in one, two, or more separate letters patent is in the discretion of the com- missioner of patents, and courts have no absolute control over such discretion. Sennett'y. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445. James J, Storrow, Elias Merwin, James J, Meyers, and Wm. L. Dayton, for oomplainant. George Haraang and James Buchanan, for defendant. Nixon, D. J, This is a motion for a preliminary injunc- tion. It seems that the oomplainant, as trustee of the Me- Kay Sewing Machine Company, has been in the extensive and undisputed use of three several patents for many years past, and that, during ail this time, there has been a public ac- quiescenoe in the monopoly. Under these circumstances a provisional injunction should be granted, unless some facts appear which take the case out of the ordinary rule. The defendant claima that such facts exist. The first of complainant's patents, numbered 20,775, was issued to Lyman E. Blake, his assigner, on the sixth of July,