attended with circumstances indicating that there would not have been this acquiescence if any fair doubt had existed as to the validity of the patent.1 A lack of public acquiescence, where the device is certainly new and useful, will not prevent the grant of a preliminary injunction.2 (11) Former Construction Followed.-The construction given in the prior adjudication of the patent will be followed in deciding upon a contest over a preliminary injunction.3 (12) Power of Court to Impose Conditions.-A preliminary injunction may be refused upon condition that the defendant give a bond with proper security, or will keep an account,5 or the injunction may be granted on condition that the complainant file a bond to indemnify the defendant for his losses, if he fail at final hearing,6 tion prior to the application for a patent, if open and under a claim of right, may raise a presumption in favor of the patent. Tappan v. National Bank Note Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 195; s. c., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 509; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553. The use of an invention for several years along with other patented inventions in a patented lamp, is not an acquiescence of the public. Upton v. Wayland, 36 Fed. Rep. 691. 1. Guidet v. Palmer, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 82; s. c., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 217. Estoppel.-An acquiescence in and assertion of the validity of the patent by officers of a company who were formerly in the employ of the plaintiff, will act as an inducement to a grant of a preliminary injunction against the company. Steam Gauge etc. Lantern Co. v. Ham. Mfg. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 618. Where the bill does not aver that the patentee has ever sold or used his improvement, the preliminary injunction will not be granted. Isaac v. Cooper, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 259; s. C., I Robb Pat. Cas. 332. A large number of licenses had been taken, some voluntarily and some in settlement of litigation, and the invention had been thoroughly investigated in the Patent Office, and there had been a quasi adjudication. Held, sufficient public acquiescence to justify preliminary injunction in face of affidavits denying novelty. Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Davis Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 974. An unsuccessful attempt to interrupt a possession strengthens the presumption. It shows that persons who have found it to their interest to question the right have questioned it, but finally sub mitted. Such submission is the most persuasive kind of acquiescence. Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553; Cook v. Earnest, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 89. A preliminary injunction will not be granted where the defendant has been in possession and use of the invention for a long period adverse to the title of complainant under color of right. Hall v. Spier, 6 Pittsb. L. J. 403; Isaac v. Cooper, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 259; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 332. See infra this title, Laches. Where the art is very complex, less weight will be given to prior acquiescence. Warner v. Bassett, 7 Fed. Rep. 468. An acquiscence of less than a year is insufficient where the patent is of doubtful construction. Johnston Ruffler' Co. v. Avery Mach. Čo., 28 Fed. Rep. 193. 2. Hussey Mfg. Co. v. Deering, 20 Fed. Rep. 795. 3. Mallory Mfg. Co. v. Hicok, 20 Fed. Rep. 116; Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. Rep. 621. A patent will be presumed to be valid only to the extent it has been adjudicated so. Carey v. Miller, 34 Fed. Rep. 392. 4. Dorsey etc. Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387; s. c., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 395; Morris v. Shelburne, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 377; s. c., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 266; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. St. Louis etc. Supply Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 491. 5. Wilder v. Gaylor, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 511. 6. Brammer v. Jones, 2 Bond (U. S.) 100; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; Shelly v. Brannon, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; s. c., or other conditions.1 (f) PROVISION IN DECREE FOR DISSOLVING INJUNCTION.— The decree for an injunction may provide for its dissolution on the defendant's giving bond and security for accounting.2 XII. DEFENSES TO ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.-1. Statutory.-(a) AS TO SPECIFICATION.-It is provided by statute that the defendant may defend by setting up that, for the purpose of deceiving the public, the description and specification filed by the patentee in the Patent Office was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his invention or discovery; or more than was necessary to produce the desired effect.3 2 Biss. (U. S.) 315; Allis v. Stowell, 15 Fed. Rep. 242; Tobey Furniture Co. v. Colby, 35 Fed. Rep. 592. Especially where the injunction leads to serious injury in suspending works. Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 13; s. C.. 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. 332; Morse v. O'Reilly, 6 W. L. J. 102. The defendant, however, has no right to demand that a bond shall be substituted for the injunction. Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 548; Tracy v. Torrey, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 275; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615; s. c., 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 18; Gibson v. Van Dresar, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 532; Conover v. Mers, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 386; Ely v. Monson etc. Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 356; Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 165. A bond can only be required in a case in which, if it is not given, the injunction must issue. American Co. v. Atlantic Co., 4 Dill: (U. S.) 100; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 168. However, it is for the court to say whether the rights of the complainant are so clear that they ought to be protected by an injunction, or not so clear so that they can be sufficiently protected by bond and security. Ely v. Monson Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 McCrary (U. S.) 155; s. c., 1 Fed. Rep. 604; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 263; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 974. 1. Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 135; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625; Orr v. Merrill, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 376; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331; Serrell v. Collins, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 61; Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 13; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331; Rogers v. Abbott, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 514; 8. C., I Robb Pat. Cas. 405; Wise v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 277. 2. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Foster v. Moore, 1 Curt. (U. S.) 279; Gilbert etc. Mfg. Co. v. Bussing 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 426; s. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 144; s. c., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 621; Howe v. Morton, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586; Jones v. Merrell, 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 401; Annunciator Co. v. Hills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 134; American etc. Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; Goodyear v. Housinger, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 147; s. c., 2 Biss. (U. S.) 1; Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator etc. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 496; American etc. Purifier Co. v. Christian, 4 Dill. (U. S.) 448; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 42; Irwin v. McRobets, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 411; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 853; Greenwood v. Bracher, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. C., I Fed. Rep. 856; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1151. 3. U. S. Rev. Stats. § 4920. See supra Specification, supra Clearness, supra Specification and Claim. The fraudulent attempt is essential to this defense. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason (U. S.) 182; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 131. Containing Too Much.-The fact that the specification contains too much does not make it prima facie fraudulent. Hotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 Den. (U. S.) 314. Matters Concealed.-The matters not disclosed must appear to have been concealed to deceive the public. Park v. Little, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 196; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 17; Gray v. James, I Pet. (C. C.) 394; 8. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Durden v. Corning, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 477; Whittemore v. Cutter, I Gall. (U. S.) 429; s. c., I Robb Pat. (b) PRIOR PATENT OR DESCRIPTION.-That the invention had been patented, or described in some printed publication prior to his supposed invention or discovery thereof.3 (c) PUBLIC USE.-Public use or sale of the patented device two years prior to the date of the application for a patent.4 (d) SURREPTITIOUSLY OBTAINING A PATENT.-That he had surreptitiously or unjustly obtained the patent for what was, in fact, invented by another, who was using reasonable diligence in Cas. 28; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218. Tetley v. Easton, 1 Macrory (Eng.) 48; Walton v. Bateman, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 613; Neilson v. Harford, I Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 295; Lewis v. Marling, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 493; s. c., I Abb. Pat. Cas. 421; Bovill v. Moore, I Davies Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 361; s. c., I Abb. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 231. A fraudulent intention may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Gray v. James, 1 Pet. (C. C.) 394; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Dyson v. Danforth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133. Material defects in the specification etc., held may be such evidence. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 429; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28; Gray v. James, 1 Pet. (C. C.) 394; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 120; Rentgen v. Kanowrs, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 168; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 1. 1. See supra, Anticipation by Patent et seq. 2. See supra, Anticipation by Publi cation. The defenses in notes one and two cannot be made in a suit in equity by plea. Carnrick V. McKesson, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 369; Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. Rep. 914. 3. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4920. This defense requires a description of the invention (as to what amounts to a description see Publication, supra) that it shall be contained in a work of public character, and that the work be made accessible to the public before the discovery of the patentee. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 466. The construction of the description is a matter of law; the identity or diversity of the thing described is a question of fact. Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 327; Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 812; Stevens v. Pierpont, 42 Conn. 360; Waterbury Brass Co. v. New York etc. Brass Co., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 43; Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64; Tucker v. Spaulding, 5 Fish. Pat. V. Cas. 297; s. C., 1 Deady (U. S.) 649; S. C., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 144; Kidd Spence, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Tillotson v. Ramsay, 51 Vt. 309; Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAll. (U. S.) 17; Sickles v. Borden, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 535; Turrill Michigan etc. R. Co., I Wall. (U. S.) 491; Serrell v. Collins, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 289. v. What is identity is a question of law. Latta v. Shawk, 1 Bond (U. S.) 259; s. c., Fish. Pat. Cas. 465. This is a different defense from prior use. Meyers v. Bushby, 32 Fed. Rep. 670. This defense cannot be made by plea in equity. Walker on Patents, (2nd ed.), § 600. May be given under general issue with notice or special plea at law. Walker on Patents (2nd ed.), § 447. It is a different defense from that of public use or sale within the United States for two years prior to the application for the patent. Meyers v. Bushby, 32 Fed. Rep. 670. A prior publication renders an English patent void. Also Chemical Electric etc. Light Co. v. Howard, 148 Mass. 352. 4. See supra this title, Public Use. This defense applies only to a use within the United States. Hurlburt v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456. For a clause held sufficient compliance with the statute with reference to this defense. See Anderson v. Miller, 129 U. S. 70. With reference to this defense where several divisional applications arise out of a single original, the date of the applications is to be considered as the date of all the applications. Frankfort Whiskey Process Co. v. Mill Creek Distilling Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 533. 5. See supra, Date of Invention. A foreign inventor cannot claim his invention as of a date prior to his foreign patent or of a printed publication. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 117. 6. See supra, Diligence. adapting and perfecting the same.1 (e) ABANDONMENT.-That the invention has been abandoned.2 (ƒ) LACK OF UTILITY.-That the invention is not useful.3 2. Notice of Special Defenses.-Where the defendant intends to employ any of these defenses, he must give notice to the plaintiff in writing thirty days before trial. At law this may be 1. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4920. This defense is distinct from prior public use, and a notice of a witness for this defense will not permit him to testify in for the other or vice versa. Meyers v. Busby, 32 Fed. Rep. 670. This defense is not complete unless all the above mentioned elements are present. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Reed v. Cutter (U.S.) 590; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81; Singer v. Walmesley, 1 Fis. Pat. Cas. 558; Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 68; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 324. A case stated where the elements are present to make a good defense. Phelps Brown, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 479; s. c., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 362. v. 2. See DEDICATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AN INVENTION, Vol. 5, p. 420. This defense is distinct from that of "two years' public use prior to application for a patent." Jones v. Sewall, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 563; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 630. Abandonment can be either actual or constructive, and may be interposed at law by general issue with or without special notice. Walker on Patents, (2nd ed.), § 449, in equity by answer. Walker on Patents, (2nd. ed.), § 602; Root v. Ball, 4 McLean (U. S.) 177. Abandonment is a question of fact. Kendall v. Windsor, 21 How. (U. S.) 322; American Hide etc. Co. v. American Tool etc. Co.; 1 Holmes, (U. S.) 503; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284. A plea of abandonment is not sustained by showing that the proceedings of the Patent Office were such as would render void the claim said to be infringed. Hutchinson v. Everett, 33 Fed. Rep. 502. 3. See UTILITY. Whether an invention is useful is a question of fact. Wintermute_v. Redington, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 239; Langdon v. De Groot, 1 Paine (U. S.) 203; s. C., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 433. Can be made at law under general issue with notice or by special plea. Walker on Patents (2nd ed.), § 448. And must be set up in answer in equity. Walker on Patents (2nd ed.), § 601; McKesson v. Carnrick, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 158. 4. Most of these defenses could, without the statute, be given in evidence under the general issue. Wilder v. Gaylor, 1 Blatchf. (U.S.) 599; Stephenson v. Magowan, 31 Fed. Rep. 824; s. c., 42 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1063; Odiorne v. Denney, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 287; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 965; Roemer v. Simon, 95 U. S. 214; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 796; Pickering v. Phillips, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 383; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. 417; s. c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 420; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Seymour v. Osborne, II Wall. (U. S.) 516; Root v. Ball, 4 McLean (U. S.) 177. But the statute makes the notice obligatory. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 9; s. c., Robb Pat. Cas. 303; Kelleher v. Darling, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 424; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 328; s. C., 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 673; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Parker Haworth, 4 McLean (U. S.) 370; Root v. Ball, 4 McLean (U. S.) 177 v. The object being that the plaintiff should not be surprised. Philadelphia etc. R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 46; Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. (U. S.) 218. Exception. Where public use is the only defense, and that public use is by plaintiff himself, notice need not be given. American Hide etc. Co. v. American Tool etc. Co., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 503. 5. Or his attorney. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4920; Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2. 6. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4920; New York Pharmical Co. v. Tilden, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 191; s. c., 14 Fed. Rep. 740; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 272; Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2; Hudson v. Bradford, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 539; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 171. 7. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4920; Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2; Westlake v. Cartter, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. done either by a special notice1 under the general issue or, where permitted, by the practice by special pleading.2 In equity, notice must be given in the answer. 3 (a) WHERE PRIOR INVENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OR PUBLIC USE IS ALLEGED.-In notices as to proof of prior invention, knowledge or use of the thing patented, the defendant shall state the names of the patentees, the date of their patents and when A 518; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 636. defective notice may be supplemented by a second, if in time and form. Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2. 1. Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2. 2. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 454; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 604; Read v. Miller, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 12; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 310; Phillips v. Comstock, McLean (U. S.) 525; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 724; Day v. New England Car Spring Co., 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 179; Wilder v. Gayler, Blatchf. (U. S.) 597; Cottier v. Stimson, 20 Fed. Rep. 906. It was held that the statutory notice could not be given in an answer under the Oregon Code. Cottier v. Stimson, 20 Fed. Rep. 906. The plea must be filed thirty days before trial. Phillips v. Comstock, 4 McLean (U. S.) 528. And the plea and notice must not raise same defense. Latta v. Shawk, I Bond (U. S.) 259; s. c., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Read v. Miller, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 12. A special plea and the general issue with notice may be joined. Cottier v. Stimpson, 9 Sawy. (U. S.) 435. 3. Pickering v. Phillips, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 417; s. c., 4 Cliff. (U.S.) 383; Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Cook v. Howard, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 269; Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Collender v. Griffith, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 212; Decker v. Grote, to Blatchf. (U. S.) 331; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143; s. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 65; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Geier v. Goetinger, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 553; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 563; Pitts v. Edmonds, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 52; s. c., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 168; Jordan v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 232; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 12 Cliff. (U. S.) 379; Orr v. Merrill, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 376; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 331; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488; Union Paper Bag Co. v. Pueltz etc. Co., 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 160; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 423; Kelleher v. Darling, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 424; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 438; s. c., 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 673; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1089; Graham v. Barber, Pat. Off. Gaz. 149; Middleton Tool Co. v. Judd, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 273; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23; Williams v. Boston etc. R. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 21; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 441; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 906; Marks v. Fox, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 502; s. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 727; Wonson v. Peterson, 13 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 548; Odiorne v. Denney, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 287; Earle v. Dexter, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 412; Pitts v. Edmonds, 1 Biss. (U. S.) 168. The special defense must be set up specifically and exactly. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz, 337. The answer must be amended to include the name, etc., of a witness introduced to show prior use, if objection to the introduction of the witness is made before the examiner. Kiesele v. Haas, 32 Fed. Rep. 794. Evidence introduced collaterally to establish facts relative to matters already in evidence need not be set up in the answer. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1330. The answer must state the same things as are required to be set up by the notice of special matter. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 34; Woodbury etc. Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 493. 4. It is sufficient to specify the patents and allege that the invention is contained in them. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 1580; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2031. Publication.-A publication pleaded as anticipation must have designated the page or heading. Foote v. Silsby, |