DUNBAE ». bstabrook:, 545 �•way. That Mr. Bent did not corrugate hÎB nail, and that the patented nail bas gone into extensive use, are facts ■which 8eem to point to both novelty and utility; and the patent is prima /acie^evidenoe of both. Judge S'hepley held the Esta- brook patent to be valid, though of limited application, not- withstanding earlier nails, which, separately considered, contained his improvements. The value of the serrations or corrugations appeara to be very marked in this naU, when intended for a shoe nail ; and, upon the whole, I do not find it to be proved that this mode of construction was so well known, as applied to eut nails, that I can hold it to have been an obvious alternative mode of making the "Bent" nail. �With regard to patent No. 164,889, the only question affeot- ing its validity is whether the discovery was made by Whid- den, or was communicated to him by the plaintiff Dunbar. On this point I bave examined the evidence^ and do not think that the defence is made out. �Whether the "cub" nail infringes, depends on whether it works in substantially the same way to produee a like resuit. Neither the head nor the body of this nail is precisely Uke that of 90,902. It does not begin to taper so soon, and its head and point are both shaped somewhat differently from those described in the patents. I think, however, that the evidence shows it to be similar in operation and resuit. �Decree for the complainants. ���DuNBAB and others v. Estabbook and others, (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. , 1880.) �1. Patents Nos. 90,902 akd 164,889, for improved eut shoe nails, hdd valid, and infringed by the " cub " nail. Estabrook v. Dunbar, 106 G. 909, ezplained. �In Equity. �LowELL, 0. J. In this motion for a preliminary injuno- tion the recent case of Dunbar v. The Albert Field Tack Corn- v.4,no.6 — 35 ����
