, ^HITE ». LEE, 817 �of hîs li(}ense it was mutually agreed that, îû case of re-issue, the grant of license should be good thereunder, and the Stip- ulations aoid agreements of the respective parties should ,be binding upon them in the same manner, and to the-same extent, as though such re-issue had. never been obtained; that the patented improvement which he was licensed to ose was that recited and referred to in the claim of the original patent, which he sets out in hase verha; that whatever may be the scope of the claims of the re-issue, No. 8, 536, he is not answerable thereto, so far as they may be construed for Bub- ject-matter different from that embraced in the original claim, but that he bas the same rights and is subject to the same obligations as if the re-issue had not been obtained; that he bas never failed to keep any of his agreements con- tained in the lease, but bas always kept them. This is set ont in detail. �The question intended to be raîsed by this plea is whetheSr the defendant is bound to account and pay for any shoes which would.be an infringemeiit of the claims of the re-issue, but would not infringe the single claim of the original patent. The laaguage of the license is acourately set out in the plea, t as far as it goes, but some other clauses may be useful in çonstruing the instrument. The granting part, after ref erring to the tWà patents, gives the right to manufacture at the de- fendant's factory, in Athol, in the state of Massachusetts, and in no other place, during the term of said letters patent, and during any renewal or extension thereof , shoes containing the said patented improvements, or either of them, or any material or substantial part thereof. Then foUow the stipulations for royalties, keeping accounts, ete . In the fifth stipulation, on the part of the defendant, he agrees not to contest the valid- ity of the patents, or of any re-issue or renewal thereof, nor the sufficiency of the specifications, "or the validity of the licensor's title, nor the fact of his infringement in the manu- fa jture and sale of said shoes." Thus far it seems to be the natural construction of the lease that if the defendant should be sued for royalties, after a re-issue, he must admit its valid- ����
