strued to mean the process of manufacturing. It is patentable in the sense of product only when it is new in itself, not merely when it is produced by a new process, or new machinery. A composition of matter has been held to be a mechanical or chemical combination of ingredients.5 4. Improvement.-An improvement is defined as something in aid of the old mode which makes the old mode better. It is patentable A new form of an old manufacture may be a new manufacture. Duff v. Calkins, 25 Pat. Off. Gaz. 601. But a new feature perceived in an old substance does not make it a new manufacture. Ansonia Co. v. Supply Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 81; s. c., 42 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1168. 1. Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 970. 2. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 351; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Goodyear v. Railroad, 2 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 356; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626; Analin Fabrik v. Hamilton, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 235; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 273; Draper v. Hudson, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 354; Young v. Lippman, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 277; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 230; S. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 249; Woodward v. Morrison, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 124; s. C., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 357; United Nickel Co. v. Pendleton, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 226; s. c., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 704. 3. American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 23 Wall. (U. S.) 566; McCloskey v. Du Bois, 19 Blatchf. (U.S.) 205; s. c., 8 Fed. Rep. 710; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1286; McKloskey v. Du Bois, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 371; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 38; Badische etc. Fabrik v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 235; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 273; Rex v. Else, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 76; Wooster v. Calhoun, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 215; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 514. Compare Anilin v. Coch rane, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 155; Anilin v. Higgin, 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 290; Lamb v. Hamblen, 11 Fed. Rep. 722; which, however, are probably overruled by Cochrane v. Badische etc. Co., III U. S. 293; s. c., 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 813. 4. Draper v. Hudson, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 208; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 354; Wooster v. Calhoun, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 215; s. C., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 514. 5. Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 327; Goodyear v. Berry, 2 Bond (U.S.) 189; Cahill v. Brown, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 580; Bowker v. Dows, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 518; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 510; Jenkins v. Walker, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 120; Root v. Hyndman, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 29; Rumford Chemical Works v. Lauer, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 122; Woodward v. Morrison, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 124; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 120. It is sometimes used synonymously with composition, compound and manufacture. Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 433; Goodyear v. Railroad, 2 Wall., Jr. (C. C.) 356; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626. 6. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 238; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 382; Kirby v. Dodge etc. Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 181; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 156; Foxwell v. Bostick, 12 W. R. 723. An improvement has essential reference to a subject matter to be improved. It is not original, but embraces and either adds to or alters the original. Bray v. Hartshorn, 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 538; Turrill v. Illinois etc. R. Co., 3 Biss. (U. S.) 66; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 330; Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 443; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 193; Page v. Ferry, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 298; Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. Rep. 697; s. c., 40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1133. Improvement has been defined as synonymous with "invention" in Reese's Appeal, 22 W. N. C. (Pa.) 501. This decision is opposed to the authority of the United States courts and those of other States. 7. An improvement can be patented to the inventor of an invention which is the basis of the improvement. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean (U. S.) 76; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Bradley, 35 Fed. Rep. 295. All the improver can patent is his improvement. Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 108; Larabee v. Cortlan, 1 Taney (U. S.) 180; when the change amounts to an invention.1 XI. ACTIONS CONCERNING PATENTS-1. Jurisdiction of State Courts. -(a) CONTRACTUAL.-The State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over questions arising out of contracts made concerning patent rights, or inventions, where there is no other source of Federal jurisdiction involved.4 (b) TORTS.-State courts have jurisdiction over questions arising out of torts not involving the infringement or validity of the patent.5 2. Jurisdiction of United States Courts.-The State courts have no jurisdiction where any question affecting the validity or in s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 5; Conover v. Roach, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; Leach v. Dresser, 69 Me. 129; Carsteadt v. United States Corset Co., 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 371; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 331; s. c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 3; Plimpton v. Winslow, 3 Fed. Rep. 333. But he patents it with reference to all machines. Burke v. Partridge, 58 N. H. 349. 1. Hall v. Wiles, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 194; Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 398; Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean (U. S.) 176; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 13; Williams v. Barker, 2 Fed. Rep. 649; S. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 242; Sinclair v. Backus, 4 Fed. Rep. 539; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 81; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1503. 2. Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 565; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 288; Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. (U. S.) 99; Goodyear v. Union India Rubber Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 63; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 151; s. c., S Pat. Off. Gaz. 773; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Fat. Cas. 152; Billings v. Ames, 32 Mo. 265; Albright v. Teas, 106 U. Š. 613; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 829; Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547; Adams v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. Rep. 208; s. c., 2 McCrary (U. S.) 360; Ingalls v. Tice, 14 Fed. Rep. 352; Smith v. Standard Mach. Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 587. 3. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 34; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 311; Hammer v. Barnes, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 174; Brooks v. Stolley, 3 McLean (U. S.) 523; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 281. 4. Fraudulent representations in the sale of a patent and to inquire whether the patent was for the purpose represented. Hunt v. Hoover, 24 Iowa 231. Controversies of the following character, where no other sources of Federal jurisdiction existed, have been specific ally decided not to be within the jurisdic tion of the United States courts: A suit thereby to recover royalty on a license. Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547; Ingalls v. Tice, 14 Fed. Rep. 352; Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 613; s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 829. A bill in equity to cancel the license, on account of the alleged invalidity of the patent, the subject matter of the license. Meserole v. Union Paper Collar Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 483; s. c., 6 Blatchf. (Ŭ. S.) 356. Bill in equity by a licensee to enjoin a patentee from violating his agreement not to use the invented device in a certain manner. Hill v. Whitcomb, I Holmes (U. S.) 317; s. c., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 34; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 430. Bill for specific performance of a contract to assign a patent. Burr v. Gregory, 2 Paine (U. S.) 426; Perry v. Littlefield, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 272; s.C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 624. A creditor's bill to reach a patent award by the debtor. Ryan v. Lee, 10 Fed. Rep. 917. A bill to determine the meaning of a license or to ascertain whether defendant has done an act upon which a right to a reduction of royalty arises. Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Singer Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 329; s. c., Blatchf. (U. S.) 113. 8 Whether the jurisdiction is in the circuit or State courts is not necessarily determined by the pleadings. Where it appears at trial that there is no federal question involved, the circuit court may dismiss a bill containing sufficient allegations to authorize the court to take cognizance. Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 288. 5. Fraudulent representations in the sale of a patent and to inquire whether the patent was for the purpose represented. Hunt v. Hoover, 24 Iowa 231. fringement of letters patent1 is directly concerned.2 (a) GENERALLY; PARTIES.-The plaintiff in an action for infringement must be the one who holds the legal title, either as patentee, mortgagee,5 1. Parsons v. Barnard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 144; Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N. Y. 9: Tomlinson v. Battel, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 266; Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 155; Kendal v. Winsor, 6 R. I. 453. The defendant cannot agree for a valuable consideration, to waive an objection to want of jurisdiction. Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N. Y. 9. Nor will State courts enjoin United States courts while proceeding in an infringement suit. Kendall v. Winsor, 6 R. 1. 453. 2. They may decide upon the validity of a patent where the question arises collaterally. Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. St. 155; Rich v. Atwater, 16 Conn. 409; Lindsay v. Roraback, 4 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 124; Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 31 Vt. 162. 3. Gayer v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477; Suydam v. Day, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 20; Sanford v. Messer, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 411; s. c., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 149; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 470; Blanchard v. Eldridge, 1 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 337; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 737; Graham v. McCormick, 20 Biss. (U.S.) 39; s. c., 11 Fed. Rep. 859; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 244; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1533; Graham v. Geneva etc. Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 138; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1536; North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 70; Sargent v. Yale Lock Mfg. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 249; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 579; S. C., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 105; Loercher v. Crandall, 11 Fed. Rep. 872; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 863; Goldsmith v. American Paper Collar Co., 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 82; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 300; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 192; Elm City Co. v. Wooster, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 452; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 83; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 536. A trustee may maintain a bill in his own name, and in the absence of objection without joining cestui que trust. Campbell v. James, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 42; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 456; S. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 979. Compare Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34. And a married woman by herself where the State laws permit her to own property as a feme sole. Lorrilard v. Standard Oil Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 432; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 902; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 902; Fetter v. Newhall, 17 Fed. Rep. 841; s. c., 25 Pat. Off. Gaz. 502. All the joint owners of the patent should join. Ambler v. Chouteau, 3 Cent. L. J. 333. But not one who merely has an interest in the profits. Goodyear v. New Jersey etc. R. Co., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626; s. c., 1 Wall Jr. (C. C.) 356. 4. Hussey v. Whiteley, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; s. c., I Bond (U. S.) 407; Still v. Reading, 9 Fed. Rep. 40; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1025. A patentee who has parted with his title to the patent, can maintain an action at law for damages for past infringement occurring during the time he owned the patent. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 515. 5. Waterman v. McKenzie, 54 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1562. A person who has no legal title, but only a collateral interest, need not be made a party. Goodyear v. New Jersey etc. R. Co., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626; s. c., 2 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 356; Morse v. O'Reilly, 6 Pa. L. J. 501; Graham v. Geneva etc. Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 138; 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1536; Hodge v. North Missouri R. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 104; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 161. Licensees. Consequently licensees cannot in their own name sue strangers who infringe. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall, (U. S.) 205; Hill v. Whitcomb, I Holmes (U. S.) 317; s. c., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 34; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 430; Nelson v. McMann, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 139; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 203; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 761; Union Paper Bag_Co. v. Nixon, 105 U. S. 766; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1275; Hayward v. Andrews, 106 U.S. 672; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 533; Wilson v. Chickering, 14 Fed. Rep. 917; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1730; Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 Fed. Rep. 255; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1978; Ingalls v. Tice, 14 Fed. Rep. 352; Ingalls v. Tice, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz, 2160; Suydam v. Day, 2 grantee,1 or assignee,2 though there are instances when licensees3 Blatchf. (U.S.) 20; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477; Waterman v. McKenzie, 54 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1562; Cottle v. Kerementz, 25 Fed. Rep. 494. Compare Brammer v. Jones, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; s. c., 2 Bond (U. S.) 100. But they can sue in their own names their licensor for infringement. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U.S.) 205; S. C., I Pat. Off. Gaz. 964; Perry v. Littlefield, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 272; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 464; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 624; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 571; Stanley Rule etc. Co. v. Bailey, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 510; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 297. And against strangers in the name of the licensor (at law). Goodyear v. McBurney, 3 Blatchf. (U. Š.) 32; Goodyear v. Bishop, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 438; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 96. And where they have authority to bring suit in the name of the licensor or his assigns they need not obtain his consent for every suit. Bassett v. Malone, 11 Fed. Řep. 801. The patentee may claim indemnity for costs. Goodyear v. Bishop, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 438; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 96. He cannot consent to a dismissal of the suit. Goodyear v. Bishop, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 438; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 96. The administrator of a licensee having a personal license only, cannot sue in his grantor's name, for damages for infringement. Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75. Equitable and Legal Owner.-In an equity suit, an equitable owner and one holding the legal title should be joined. Stimpson 7. Rogers, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 333; Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Blatch. (U. S.) 86. But at law the legal owner only. Park v. Little, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 196; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 17; Blanchard v. Eldridge, Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 337; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 737. 1. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; s. c., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575; Olcott v. Hawkins, 2 Am. L. J. N. S. 317; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646. Grantee and patentee may join. Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How. (U. S.) 712; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 473; Ogle v. Edge, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 584; s. C., I Robb Pat. Cas., 516; Bach v. Cobb, 9 L. R. 545. A grantee who had reserved for himself by the patentee certain rights in part of territory granted, need not join the patentee in suing for an infringement in a State not subject to the reservation. Hobbie v. Smith, 27 Fed. Rep. 656. 2. Henry v. Francestown etc. Stove Co., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 221; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 408; Hamilton v. Rollins, 5 Dill. (U. S.) 495; s. C 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 157; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond (U. S.) 126; 8. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Shaw v. Colwell Lead Co., II Fed. Rep. 711; Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. Rep. 338; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 354; s. c., 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 921; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1111; Herbert v. Adams, 4 Mason (U. S.) 15; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 505; Suydam v. Day, 2 Blatchf (U. S.) 20; Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 324; s. C., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 14. Assignees as tenants in common may join. Stein v. Goddard, 1 McAll. (U. S.) 82. See Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 429; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 28. Assignor and assignee may join in a bill in equity where infringement occurred before assignment. Anthony v. Carroll, 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 199; s. c., 2 Bann & Ard. Pat. Cas. 195. And in a suit against a former li. censee whose license has been for. feited, the assignor who granted the license is a necessary party. Wood. worth v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 151. An assignee of a patent with the assignment of the right to damages for past infringement may maintain an action at law in his own name. Spring v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 446; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1445. 3. Goodyear v. Railroad, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 626; s. c., 2 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 356; Goodyear v. Allyn, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 374; s. c., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 33; Dorsey etc. Rake Co. v. Bradley Mfg. Co., 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 202; s. c., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 330. But ordinarily a licensee has not such an interest as compells his joining. Potter v. Wilson, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 102; Grover etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Sloat, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 112; Nellis v. Pennock Mfg. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 451; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1131. and others1 are proper parties to be joined, especially in equity. (6) ACTION AT LAW; DECLARATION.-The proper legal action for the infringement of a patent is an action on the case. The declaration must show title in plaintiff,3 a lawful issue and delivery of the patent, the nature of the inventions and aver an infringement by the defendant; and if the patent has been extended, such extension must be averred." But an exclusive licensee should be. Hammond v. Hunt, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. III. And in certain cases should be the sole party. Herman v. Herman, 29 Fed. Rep. 92. 1. Personal Representatives.-Until an assignment is made, all suits must be brought in the name of the personal representative of the deceased owner. Hodge v. North Missouri R. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 104; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 161; Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34. But where the equitable interest passed out of the patentee during his lifetime, the administrator is trustee for the equitable owner, and the heirs are not necessary parties. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34. sue A foreign administrator can without taking out letters of administration in the State where suit is brought. Smith v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J, 529; Goodyear v. Hullihen, 2 Hughes (U. S.) 492; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251. The executor in whom the legal title is only necessary. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499. A holder of the equitable title to a patent may maintain a bill in equity against a party having the legal title. Ruggles v. Eddy, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 52; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 583. Joint Owners. In equity one joint owner of a patent cannot sue the other. Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 506. Apparently otherwise at law. Pitts v. Hall, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 201. Partners.-One partner cannot file a bill without joining his co-partners for infringement of a firm patent. Ambler v. Chouteau, 3 Cent. L. J. 333. 1. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4919; Stein v. Goddard, McAll. (U. S.) 82; Byam v. Ballard, 1 Curt. (U. S.) 100. 3. Gray v. James, 1 Pet. (C. C.) 476; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 140. 4. Cutting v. Myers, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 220; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 159. It is enough to set forth the grant in substance. Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 31. But a variance is fatal if the grant is professed to be set forth according to its tenor. Tryon v. White, Pet. (C. C.) 96. Novelty and Utility.-The novelty and utility of the invention must be set up. Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatchf (U.S.) 31. 5. Peterson v. Wooden, 3 McLean (U. S.) 248; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 116. Either the letters patent can be annexed to the declaration or a profert made. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story (U. S.) 609; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189; Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatchf. (Ú. S.) 31. 6. Cutting v. Myers, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 220; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 159; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U.. S.) 516. The plaintiff is confined to the times within which he declares the infringement to have taken place. Eastman v. Bodfish, 1 Story (U. S.) 528; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 72. Distinct infringements of one patent may be set up in one count. Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 31. And infringements of a generic patent and an improvement when both are held by the same party, must be brought together. Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean (U. S.) 526; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 741. 7. Phelps v. Comstock, 4 McLean (U. S.) 353. Where plaintiff wishes to recover under both original and extended patents, he must file distinct and independent counts for each patent. Eastman v. Bodfish, I Story (U. S.) 528; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 72. |