Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/520

 BPRINQ V. DOMESTIO SEWINO-MACHINE CO. 505 �Upon these considerations there must b'e a decree for the plaintiff. The patent bas expiied, and therefore no injunction will be granted unless further moved for upon some special grounds. Let a decree be entered adjudging that the patent is valid £|,nd that the defendant has inf ringed, and for an account, according to the prayer of the bill, with costs. ���Speino and others v. Domestio Sbwing-Ma.ohine Co. {Uircuit Court, D. New Jeney. Novembor 18, 1881.) �1. Letters Patent — Lathes for Turnino Irrkgular Formb. �The machine covered by letters patent issued to Charles and Andrew Spring, May 10, 1859, for an improvement in lathes for turning irregular lorms, is not anticipated by the Pemot machine. �2. COMITY. �In patent cases a circuit court will follow a previous decision, rendered by the court of another circuit, where the same patent was a subject of controversy, only when the evidence that has been introduced in the two case^is sub- stantially the same. �3. iNPHrNGBMBItT— MEASUHE OF PkOOF. �Very slight proof of infringement is sufflclent �eorge E. Betton and Geo. S. Boutwell, for complainants. �John Dane, Jr., for defendant. �Before McKennan, C. J., and Nixon, D. J. �Nixon, D. J. The question of the validity of the patent on whioh this suit -was brought was before the learned judges of the first circuit (Clifford and Lowell) at the ter m of October, 1874. It -was there held that the complainants' patent was a valuable and ingenious improvement in lathes for turning irregular forms; that Charles and Andrew Spring were original and meritorious inventors of the said improvement ; but that the patent should be declared void in view of the fact that the testimony showed that they were not the first invent- ors ; that the patent was for a combination, all the elements of which were old ; and that the same was anticipated by the machine of one Pemot, proved to have been made in New York, and operated there for several years in the manufacture of large quantities of sewing- machine needles. Spring v. Packard, 7 0. G. 341. �The great respect which we entertain for the opinion of that court, as well as interstate comity, would readily lead us to accept its decis- ion as controlling this case, if the truth of the facts on which it was based were not controverted and seriously questioned here. ��� �