tory right.1 cases.2

Where complainant has been defeated on the main issue and succeeded only on an issue of trivial importance, costs will be refused. Marks etc. Chair Co. v. Wilson, 43 Fed. Rep. 302; Railway Mfg. Co. v. R. Co., 34 Pat. Off. Gaz. 921; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf (U. S.) 113; s. c., 23 Fed. Rep. 49; Wooster v. Hill, 22 Fed. Rep. 830.

But where defendant fails to defend a branch of the case, costs will go against him on this branch. Chicopee Folding Box Co. v. Rogers, 32 Fed. Rep. 695.

Reference to Master.-Where the costs on a reference to a master had been augmented by the production of irrelevant testimony by the prevailing party. Troy Iron etc. Factory v. Cornning, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 85; s. c., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 223.

Where rehearing is had to let plaintiff give in evidence he should have given in originally. Fay v. Allen, 30 Fed. Rep. 446.

Costs on Dismissal.-See Ryan v. Gould, 41 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1392.

1. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

But courts of equity may allow costs other than those prescribed in the statute. Spaulding v. Tucker, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 633.

2. As a general rule, security will not be required. Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U. S.) 171; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Čas. 257

For cases in which security has been required, see Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 13; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 323.

The rule to enter security must be taken at the proper time. Bliss v. Brooklyn, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 217.

When Costs Are Given.Although costs are usually only given when the cause is decided, yet a court may grant them with reference to matters completely settled before that time. Avery v. Wilson, 20 Fed. Rep. 856.

What May be Taxed.-Telegrams in the progress of the suit. Hussey 7. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 210.

Postage on the transmission and return of a commission. Prouty v. Draper, 2 Story (U. S.) 199.

Copies of assignments. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 53. Procuring models of the invention

by defendant. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

Witnesses. Where the testimony of witnesses is taken under a deposition by consent, a reasonable sum as costs for procuring the attendance of witnesses may be allowed. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

Fees of witnesses who actually attend before the plaintiff becomes nonsuit, though not examined. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

Not to be Taxed-Witnesses.-A witness attending merely by request of a party. Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond (U. S.) 528; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 244; Spaulding v. Tucker, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 633.

Mileage of witnesses who have come twice in the same term. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

Mileage for officers of defendant corporation. American etc. Drill Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 552.

A deposition cannot be taxed where it is dispensed with by the party taking it and the party called as a witness. Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

A party is not entitled to counsel fees for witnesses before a master. Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467.

Witnesses before a master whose testimony was afterwards abandoned or given up, or stricken out or rejected by the master and the striking out or rejection sustained by the court. Troy Iron Factory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 16.

General Treatise.-For a general treatise on taxable costs, see Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 113; 8. C., 23 Fed. Řep. 49.

What May Not be Taxed.-Models not referred to in the patent. Woodruff v. Barney, 1 Bond (U. S.) 528; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 244; Hussey v. Bradley, Blatchf. (U. S.) 210; Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 285.

5

Model of the infringing machine. Cornelly v. Markwald, 24 Fed. Rep. 187.

Mileage. To marshal serving a rule to plead on defendant. Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 285.

Or for over one hundred miles when the subpoena is served in another district, though the marshal really travels further. Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 285.

No mileage of officers of a corporation testifying on its behalf. American etc. Drill Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 552.

Copies and Printing.-Copies of pleadings or proofs. Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 210.

Printing record is not an item of cost where it is done voluntarily. Spaulding v. Tucker, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 633.

Where ordered by court the expense may be equally divided. Brooks v. By am, 2 Story (U. S.) 525.

Of a copy of patent procured by defendant. Hathaway Roach, Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 63.

υ.

2 Time of Taxing Costs-Costs are almost invariably taxed after the judgment is rendered and entered by direction of the court nunc pro tunc as part of the original judgment. They may be taxed and entered on the record after a transcript has been sent to the supreme court. Sizer v. Many, 16 How. (U. S.) 98.

By Whom Taxed.-Costs are taxed with a few exceptions by the clerk. He cannot, however, fix the master's fee. Doughty v. West etc. Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 318.

See, for a complicated taxation with reference to master's fee. American etc. Drill Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 552.

1. See Foster's Fed. Practice, §§ 353, 354 355, 356, 357.

Where the bill of review is filed on account of a matter of fact, leave of court to file it must be first obtained; where filed on account of newly discovered evidence, the evidence must be more than merely cumulative, and must have been discovered within a reason. able time before the filing of the bill. Blandy v. Griffith, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 434.

There must have been an effort to obtain the evidence for the first trial, and where there has been a decree against a party who failed to take any evidence while he could have obtained such by using proper diligence. Irwin v. Meyrose, 2 McCrary (U. S.) 244.

A decree by consent cannot be set aside by a bill of review. In re Pentlarge, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 306; s. c., 4

Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 607. See, however, Thompson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104; s. c., 31 Pat. Off. Gaz. 913.

Evidence in a Proceeding Before a Master-Where Taken.-May be taken abroad. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillette, 28 Fed. Rep. 673.

Suspension of Accounting.-Accounting will not be suspended pending an appeal of a case on the same patent decided in another circuit adversely to complainant. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Comstock etc. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 358.

How Damages Are to be Paid When Several Are Interested in Patent.Where several parties are entitled to a share of the damages, they are paid in proportion to their respective interests. Campbell v. James, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 92; s. c. 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 354: s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 338; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1261; Herring v. Gas Consumers Assoc, 9 Fed. Rep. 556; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 203.

But the defendant may be allowed to pay the gross amount into court. Campbell v. James, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 92; s. c., 5 Bann. &. Ard. Pat. Cas. 354; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 338; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1111; Timken v. Olin, 41 Fed. Rep. 169.

2. Birdsell v. Hagerstown etc. Mfg. Co., 1 Hughes (U.S.) 59; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 519; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 420; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 105; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 460; Atlan tic etc. Giant Powder Co. v. Dittmar etc. Powder Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 316; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1380; Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, 39 Fed. Rep. 284; s. c., 48 Pat. Off. Gaz. 676.

A mere sending of a machine from the maker to an agent is not enough. McKay v. Scott etc. Mach. Co., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 372.

Or an advertisement that a party makes a machine. Allis v. Stowell, 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 727.

But fitting up a factory to make the infringing articles is. Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 429; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 209.

Or combining to aid others to infringe. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. Rep. 683.

Or partially making the device and sending it to others to be finished. Knowles v. Peck, 42 Conn. 386.

The contempt is the violation of the injunction, not the continuation of the infringement of the patent, and the injunction, if wrong, should be rectified by the court on motion of the defendant. Hamilton v. Simons, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 77; Sickels v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 14; Craig v. Fisher, 2 Sawy. (U.S.) 345.

1. Liddle v. Cory, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 1; Putnam v. Hollander, 11 Fed. Rep. 75; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Eastman, 11 Fed. Rep. 902; Burk v. Imhauser, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 465; S. C., II Pat. Off. Gaz. 112; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. Rep. 568; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 562; California Art Stone Co. v. Molitio, 119 U. S. 451; s. c., 38 Pat. Off. Gaz. 329; Western etc. Mfg. Co. v. Rosenstock, 30 Fed. Rep. 67.

A real difference from the article enjoined will not subject the maker to an action for contempt; the remedy is a second suit for infringement, even if the article is within the patent. Michaels v. Roessler, 38 Fed. Rep. 742.

2. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 190; Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 429; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 209.

3. Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf.. (U. S.) 190; Phillips v. Detroit, 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 92; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 100; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 627.

4. Wetherell v. New Jersey Zinc Co., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 105; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 460. See Wellesly v. Earl of Mornington, 11 Beav. (Eng.) 180.

A defendant neglecting to notify his agents of the injunction, is responsible for their acts. Mundy v. Ridgewood Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 541.

The party in contempt must be a party to the suit. A corporation which purchases the business of another party who subsequently were enjoined, will not be in contempt for not obeying the injunction. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. Rep. 685.

A party may be punished for contempt or may be proceeded against by injunction where he violates the injunction in another circuit. Roemer v. Neumann, 23 Fed. Rep. 447. 5. Where the violation is not wilful, defendant will be merely required to pay the profits as damages and costs. Ready Roofing Co. v. Taylor, 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 95; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 368; Matthews v. Spangenberg, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1624.

Counsel fees of complainant may be exacted. Doubleday v. Sherman, 8 Blatchf. (U.S.) 45; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 253; Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 152; s. c.. 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 544; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 831; Phillips v. Detroit, 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 92; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 150; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 627; Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. Rep. 716.

An order imposing a fine may be made. Fisher v. Hayes, 19 Blatchf. (U.S.) 13; s. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 63; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 601.

He may committed. Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 463; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 260; Fischer v. Hayes, 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 672.

Mitigating Circumstances.-Mitigating circumstances showing that the violation of an injunction was not wilful but unintentional, will lighten the penalty. Matthews v. Spangenberg, 15 Fed. Rep. 813; Barb Steel Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed Wire Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 615; s. c., 40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 578; Morss v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 482.

The advice of counsel is no excuse for a contempt. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. Rep. 683; Barr v. Kimbark, 29 Fed. Rep. 428; s. c., 40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 246; Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 429; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 209; Morss v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 482.

Nor a mistake. Barb. Steel Wire Co. v. Southern Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 615; s. c.. 40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 578.

Practice on Contempt.-The court can order an inspection of the device alleged to be made in contempt of the decree and refer the matter to a master to determine the facts. The contempt

is a criminal offence, and the fine or other penalty is a criminal judgment, which cannot be altered after the expiration of the term. The punishment for a contempt may be imposed by an order in the suit in which the injunction was granted, though it is not irregular to entitle the proceedings as "The People" v., or same "on relation of" -.the fine may be made payable to the party injured by the contempt, and the party in contempt ordered to pay expenses caused by his contempt; he may be committed; there cannot be an imprisonment and fine, but the party may be fined and committed until the fine be paid; and the court may make several orders in the case without exhausting its powers. It need not be averred in the order adjudging contempt that the injunction violated was lawful, nor the offense recited. Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. Rep. 63.

1. While this subject of patent law is practically dead, yet it would leave the article incomplete to omit all reference; so the notes consist merely of a list of cases bearing on the text but not set forth at length.

2. Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U.S.) 171; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 257; Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 McLean (U. S.) 64; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Potter v. Braunsdorf, 7 Blatcht. (U. S.) 97.

3. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. S.) 432; Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story (U. S.) 122; s. c., 2 Robb P. Cas. 206, Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 373; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U. S.) 171; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Čas. 257; Kellberg's Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 129.

4. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4924. Practice. See U. S. Rev. Stats., §§ 4924, 4925; Brooks v. Bicknell, McLean (U. S) 250; 6. c.. 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Gear v. Grosvenor, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314; s. c., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 215; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 380; Johnson v. McCullough, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 170.

Practice in deciding whether to grant extension. See U. S. Rev. Stats., §§ 4926, 4927.

As to How Far the Decision of Commissioner Is Conclusive.-Dorsey etc. Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387; s. c., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 506; Colt v. Young, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 471; Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Jordan v. Dobson, Fish. Pat. Cas. 232; s. C., 2 Abb. (U. S.) 398; Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; s. c., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 351; Gear v. Grosvenor, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 215; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 314; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 380; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Eureka Co. v. Bartley Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488; Mowry v. Whitney, 8 Fish. Pat. Cas. 157; Mowry v. Whitney, 4 Fish. Pat. Čas. 307; Mowry v. Whitney, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 496; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 620; American Wood Paper Co. v. Glens Falls Paper Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 518; s. c., 4 Fish Pat. Cas. 324; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 9_Blatchf. (U. S.) 18; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499.

Is Not Conclusive.-Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646.

What is a decision. See American Wood Paper Co. v. Glens Falls Paper Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 513; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 561.

Foreign patent will not prevent an extension. Tilghman v. Mitchell, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 18; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; New American File Co. v. Nicholson File Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 816; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 524.

5. That the patentee, without neglect or fault on his part, has failed to obtain from the use and sale of his invention or discovery a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity and expense bestowed upon it, and the introduction of it into use, and that it is just and proper, having due regard to the public interest, that the term of the patent should be extended. U. S. Rev. Stats. 4929.

1. See Rights Given by Act of Congress, supra.

A special act procured by fraud is binding on the courts, and the only remedy is to obtain a repeal of the patent. Gibson v. Cifford, 1 Blatchf. (U.S.) 529.

And the form of an extension under a special act may be the same as that in general use. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583.

A special act extending the patent is effected by the statute saving the rights of persons having the lawful right to use the thing patented into the extended term. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. (U. S.) 539; Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 340; Blanchard v. Whitney, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307.

5

Compare Bloomer v. Stolley, McLean (U. S.) 158; Gibson v. Gifford, I Blatchf. (U. S.) 529.

2. Sayles v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 512; Potter v. Empire Sewing Mach. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 474.

3. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4928.

4. It only means that one having a machine lawfully in use during the original term may continue lawfully to use it in the same manner during the extension. Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U.S.) 646; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U. S.) 171; Wilson v. Turner, 4 How. (U. S.) 712; Blanchard v. Whitney, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307; Bloomer v. Millinger, Wall. (U. S.) 340; Wooster v. Seidenberg, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 88; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 91; Day v. Union India Rubber Co., 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 488; Union Mfg. Co. v. Lounsbury, 41 N. Y. 363; Mitchell v. Hawley, I Holmes (U. S.) 42; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 544; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 241; Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 22 How. (U. S.) 217; Eunson v. Dodge, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 414; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 95; Woodworth v. Cur

tis, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 424; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 603; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 151; Wetherill v. Passaic Zinc Co., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 471; Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. (U. S.) 109; Farrington v. Water Commissioners, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 216; Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 435; Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. (U. S.) 539; Bloomer v. Stolley, McLean (U. S.) 158.

Where several rights besides using are given, the assignee may continue to use, but the other rights fall. Wood v. Michigan etc. R. Co., 2 Biss. (U. S.) 65; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 464; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 85; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410.

5. Kelley v. Ypsilanti Dress Stay Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 19; Allis v. Stowell, 16 Fed. Rep. 783; Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 552; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 644; Booth v. Seevers, 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1140; Birdsell v Hagerstown Agricul tural Mfg. Co., 1 Hughes (U. S.) 64; Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 901; National Cash Register Co. v. Boston Cash Indicator Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 51.

But a complainant will not be compelled to elect between several using purchasers. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear etc. Dental Co., 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 375; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 334; s. c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 14.

The application must be made before proceedings have advanced far in the other suits. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 552; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 644.

The articles claimed to infringe must be the same both in the cases against the purchasers and the case against the manufacturer. Allis v. Stowell, 16 Fed. Rep. 783.