means for the forming-plate adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bagtube, a finger moving with the forming-plate for receiving the upper sheet of the tube and lifting it during the formative action, power devices for returning the forming-plate to its original position to receive a new bag-tube, means to sustain the rear of the forming-plate clear of the surface of the revolving cylinder so as to permit the proper entrance of the paper bag between the former-plate and the surface of the cylinder, and means to move the bag-tube with the cylinder.

4. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of the rotating cylinder provided with one or more pairs of side-folding fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, a forming-plate also provided with forming side fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, means for operating said fingers at definite times during the formative action upon the bag-tube, operating means for the forming-plate adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bag-tube, means to sustain the rear of the forming-plate clear of the surface of the revolving cylinder so as to permit the proper entrance of the paper bag between the former-plate and the surface of the cylinder, and means to move the bag-tube with the cylinder.

5. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of a rotating cylinder provided with one or more nippers, power devices for opening and closing the nippers at predetermined intervals of time, pivoted side-forming fingers G G carried upon the surface of the cylinder and upon each side thereof so as to receive the bagtube between them, power devices for operating the fingers G, G at definite times during their movement forward with the cylinder, a forming-plate E also provided with side-forming fingers H H adapted to be brought into alinement above the fingers G G in the preliminary operation of forming the bag, a movable frame to which said forming-plate is hinged, power devices for moving said movable frame, power devices for oscillating the said forming-plate upon the movable frame so that its rear edge travels in conjunction with and at the same rate of speed as the cylinder, and means for operating the formingfingers of the former-plate.

6. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of a rotating cylinder provided with one or more nippers, power devices for opening and closing the nippers at predetermined intervals of time, pivoted forming-fingers G G carried upon the surface of the cylinder and upon each side thereof so as to receive the bag-tube between them, power devices for operating the fingers G G at definite times during their movement forward with the cylinder, a forming-plate E also provided with the forming-fingers H H adapted to be brought into alinement above the fingers G G in the preliminary operation of forming the bag and also provided with a finger rearwardly extending at its forward end for separating the upper layer of the bag-tube when opening the same during the oscillation of the plate, a movable frame to which said forming-plate is hinged, power devices for moving said movable frame, power devices for oscillating the said formingplate upon the movable frame so that its rear edge travels in conjunction with and at the same rate of speed as the cylinder, and means for operating the forming-fingers of the forming-plate.

7. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of the rotating cylinder for the bag-tube provided with one or more pairs of folding-fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, a forming-plate also provided with formingfingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, means for operating said fingers at definite times during the formative action upon the bag-tube, operating means for the forming-plate adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bag-tube, and connecting mechanism for timing the movements of the rotating cylinder and the forming-plate.

8. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of a rotating cylinder provided with one or more nippers, power devices for opening and closing the nippers at predetermined intervals of time, pivoted forming-fingers G G carried upon the surface of the cylinder and upon each side thereof so as to receive the bag

tube between them, power devices for operating the fingers G, G at definite times during their movement forward with the cylinder, a forming-plate E also provided with forming-fingers H H adapted to be brought into alinement above the fingers G G in the preliminary operation of forming the bag, a movable frame to which said forming-plate is hinged, power devices for moving said movable frame, power devices for oscillating the said forming-plate upon the movable frame so that its rear edge travels in conjunction with and at the same rate of speed as the cylinder, means for operating the forming-fingers of the forming-plate, and connecting devices for timing the movements of the movable frame the former-plate and the rotating cylinder.

In testimony of which invention I have hereunto set my hand.

Witnesses:

R. M. Hunter.

Ernest Howard Hunter.

Wm. Liddell.

The following are the drawings referred to in the application:

Betts, Betts, Sheffield & Betts, and Francis T. Chambers, for complainant.

Albert H. Walker, and Symonds, Snow, Cook & Hutchinson, for respondent.

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge. This is a bill in equity alleging infringements of the first, second, and seventh claims of the patent to William Liddell, stated therein to be for, "an improvement in paper bag machines," No. 558,969, issued on April 28, 1896, on an application filed on February 6, 1896. In line with the frankness with which the court has been dealt with, the respondent stated at the hearing that these three claims are so near alike that the question of infringement is the same in respect to all of them, as is also the question of validity. Therefore we will confine our explanations to the first claim, which is as follows:

"I. In a paper-bag machine, the combination of a rotating cylinder, provided with one or more pairs of side-folding fingers, adapted to be moved toward or from each other, a forming-plate, also provided with side-forming fingers. adapted to be moved toward or from each other, means for operating said fingers at definite times during the formative action upon the bag-tube, operating means for the forming-plate, adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder; the whole operating for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bag-tube and means to move the bag-tube with the cylinder."

No machine was ever built for practical uses in accordance with the patent, but a model was constructed for this case. This is evidently a practical machine, and it is not maintained that it departs from the patent in any essential particular. Therefore we must find that the machine, as described in the patent, is practical. While, moreover, the complainant, previous to this litigation, had not practically demonstrated the utility of its machine, yet, if the complainant is correct in its propositions as to infringement, the respondent has shown it; so that, therefore, as to the issues of practicability and utility, there is no difficulty which presents itself to the court. We should also add that we understand the defense is limited as hereinafter stated, so that, in fact, no question is made on the points either of utility or practicability.

The principal defenses, as stated to us by the respondent, are two: First, that the respondent's machines do not infringe; and, second, that the patent in suit is void because the only distinctive part of the mechanism described and claimed therein was not invented by Liddell, but was contributed by one Hunter, and was inserted by him in the drawings and specification without the direction, procurement, or knowledge of Liddell. The first principal ground of defense has a double aspect, as follows: First, the respondent's machines were constructed in accordance with a patent to Edward E. Claussen, No. 598,497, issued on February 8, 1898, on an application filed on July 29, 1896. The respondent claims that Claussen's invention was prior to Liddell's, so that, conceding Liddell any invention, it would necessarily follow that the respondent's machine could not infringe the patent in suit. Second, conceding Liddell's priority, it is claimed

that the mechanism of the respondent's machines is substantially unlike the mechanism claimed in the complainant's patent.

The bill asks for both an injunction and an account, and, though no issue has been made as to jurisdiction in equity for the account, it is maintained that, under the circumstances, equity will not take jurisdiction for an injunction. We have stated that no machine for practical manufacturing purposes was ever constructed under the Liddell patent. The record also shows that the complainant, so to speak, locked up its patent. It has never attempted to make any practical use of it, either itself or through licenses, and apparently its proposed policy has been to avoid this. In this respect, it has not the common excuse of a lack of means, as it is unquestioned that the complainant is a powerful and wealthy corporation. We have no doubt that the complainant stands in the common class of manufacturers who accumulate patents merely for the purpose of protecting their general industries and shutting out competitors. According to the view of the court as now constituted, there are, and can be, no peculiar rules applicable to bills in equity in causes. touching alleged infringements of patents for invention, and such bills are governed by the general rules, except, of course, so far as the statute authorizes an award of damages, as well as an account of profits. Applying those general rules, it seems to the court, as now constituted, that a case like this at bar exhibits no interest involved as to which a complainant can suffer legal detriment pending litigation in the courts of common law. Nevertheless, in some way the practice seems to have crystallized otherwise, and the court sees no relief for the respondent in this direction, unless in some way obtained from the Supreme Court. The court is all the more indisposed to act on its own peculiar views because in any event, if the complainant's case has merits, it has not been claimed, as we have already said, that it is not entitled to maintain this bill for an accounting. An accounting would probably be quite as serious for the respondent as an injunction, which may be superseded during an appeal, while, also, an interlocutory order for an accounting and for nothing else would interpose long delays before reaching the appellate tribunals, which delays would not follow the ordinary decree for an injunction and a master.

This case presents mainly issues of fact, involving numerous details and considerations pro and con. They were argued with ability and thoroughness, covering the larger portion of a week. Many questions were thus sifted out, and results there reached by the court which it holds in mind satisfactorily to itself. It is not often of much value under such circumstances to develop such issues in judicial opinions, and frequently enlarging on details obscures the pith of the conclusions reached. For these reasons, the burden which the court must assume in undertaking to recall and state all the details of the various questions of fact, which were digested by it as the case was argued, would not be compensated for by the results of an attempt to do so universally, and therefore on at least some such questions our conclusions will be stated very briefly.

The respondent insists that the Liddell patent was the twentieth