WHITE V. S. HARKIS & SONS MAN0F G 00. ���161 ���lengtti above the upper end of the spindle, so that the com- bination of Pearl's second claim appears to be present, of tbd bobbin with two chambers, the intermediate adhesive bear- ing, and the blade of the spindle made shorter than the bob- bin. These bobbins are represented by the exhibits H, I, J, and M, and are said to have been used with a spindle sub- stantially like exhibit G. �Upon the best consideration I have been able to give to the contradictory evidence in respect to the Wauregan bobbin, I am of opinion that Atwood did ream ont the top of bis bob- bins before the date of Pearl's invention. I agree with the plaintiffs' counsel that this fact only affecta the third claim, and does not prevent a recovery for infringing the second. It may eventually bave a bearing on the taxation of costs. �Interlocutory decree for the complainants. ���Whitb », S. Hàbris & Sons Manupactueing Co. �{Cvreuit Court, D. Massachusetts. July 19, 1880.) 1. Patert No. 220,126— In jdkctiom—Licbh SB— EsTOPPBifc �In Equity. �Myers dt Warner, for complainant. �Thos. H. Dodge, for defendants. �LowELL, C. J. The complainant's patent, No. 220,126, is recent, and bas not been litigated, and the affidavits give us to understand that its validity is seriously contested, This is reason enough for not giranting a preliminary injunetion. �It is said that the defendants are estopped by having accepted a license from the complainant. But the only license asked for or taken was to sell certain goods which the defend- ants had on hand when the patent was obtained, which seems to be rather in the nature of a compromise to save trouble, than a deliberate acknowledgment of the validity of the patent. But, if the defendants are estopped to dispute the patent, there is a serions doubt of the infringement. The ^ v.3.no.3— 11 ����
