Case Name: MARDEN et al. v. CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF'G CO.; CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF'G CO. v. MARDEN et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1896-11-10
Citations: 79 F. 653
Docket Number: Nos. 169, 170
Parties: MARDEN et al. v. CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF’G CO. CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF’G CO. v. MARDEN et al.
Judges: Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and NELSON, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 79
Pages: 653–656

Head Matter:
MARDEN et al. v. CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF’G CO. CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF’G CO. v. MARDEN et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
November 10, 1896.)
Nos. 169, 170.
Patents—Infringement Suit—Settlement auteb Interlocutory Decree— Pinal Decree. • .
An interlocutory decree for injunction and an accounting was granted under a bill relating to the use of a single machine by defendants, who were not manufacturers, and who indicated no disposition to use any other infringing machine. Thereafter, and before final decree, a settlement was effected, whereby all damages, profits, and costs wore released, and defendant was licensed to use and sell that machine. This settlement having been brought to the attention of the court under such circumstances that a formal pleading of it was waived, it rendered a final decree for a perpetual injunction, with a provision that it should not apply to the machine in question. Held, that this was erroneous, and that the bill should have been dismissed without costs.
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
This was a suit in equity by the Campbell Printing-Press & Manufacturing Company against George A. Harden and others for alleged infringement of certain patents for web printing machines. In December, 1894, an interlocutory decree for an injunction and account was ordered’, the court holding that certain claims of the patents were valid and infringed, that others were not infringed, and that one claim of the Stonemetz patent was void for want of novelty. 64 Fed. 782. Prom this decree both parties appealed, and thereafter, upon a hearing in this court, the appeal of the defendants was dismissed without prejudice to subsequent proceedings in the circuit court or to a subsequent appeal, and the appeal of the complainant was dismissed, with costs." Thereafter the defendants moved to reopen the decree to amend their answer and introduce further evidence, which motion was granted, the court at the same time vacating the order for supersedeas, and authorizing the issuance of an injunction. 70 Fed. 339. After some further proceedings below, a settlement was effected between the parties by the payment of a sum in cash in satisfaction of all profits, damages, and costs, and the granting of a license to defendant to use and sell the infringing machine,- which was the sole subject of the suit. This settlement having been brought to the attention of the court, a final decree was entered, December 16, 1895, granting a perpetual injunction against the infringement of claims 1, 2, and 7 of patent No. 291.521, and the twelfth claim of patent No. 376.053. The decree concluded with the following paragraph:.
“And it appearing to the court that the respondents, since the filing of this bill, to wit, on the 22d day of. November, 1895, in consideration of the payment by them to the complainant of the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, have received from the complainant a contract in writing, whereby the complainant licenses the respondents to use and sell a certain printing machine, which machine is the same by the use of which the respondents herein are adjudged to have infringed certain claims of said patents, and also releases any right to any money recovery of damages, profits, or costs in this cause,—it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the respondents shall not be held to violate the injunction heretofore in this decree ordered by any use or sale by them in the future of the said machine as to which the respondents are so licensed as aforesaid, and that the complainant recover no damages or profits from the respondents, and that the complainant recover no costs of the respondents.”
From this decree both parties have appealed.
Frederic H. Betts, T. H. Alexander, and Arthur E. Dowell, for Geo. A Marden.
Louis W. Southgate and Frederick P. Fish, for Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf’g Co.
Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and NELSON, District Judge.

Opinion:
COLT, Circuit Judge.
These are cross appeals from the decision of the circuit court. The defendants below move to dismiss the complainant's appeal upon the ground that the cause of action therein has been extinguished by settlement thereof. In the court below the defendants were adjudged to have infringed the first, second, and seventh claims of the Kidder patent, No. 291,521, issued January 8, 1884, and the twelfth claim of the Stonemetz patent, No. 376|053, issued January 3,1888. These patents were for improvements in printing machines. The bill alleges that the defendants, without license or right, use, and threaten to continue to use, a single printing and folding machine which contains each and all of the patented improvements. The bill was filed July 11, 1892. On November 22, 1895, the complainant granted a license to the defendants. This license contains (he following provisions:
"Aiul whereas, the said Harden & Howell are desirous of taking a license from the said Campbell Printing-Press and ¡Manufacturing Company under both of said patents, and are desirous of being discharged from all costs of the suit brought by the Campbell Printing-Press and Manufacturing Company in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts against them, and are desirous of being discharged from ail claims for damages, profits, or recoveries whatsoever which the said Campbell Piiuting-Press and Manufacturing Company have under said patents against the said Marden & Rowell: Xow, therefore, to all whom it may concern, bo it known that for and in consideration of the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,300) well and truly paid by said ¡Harden & Rowell to said Campbell Printing-Press and Manufacturing Company, it (loos hereby license and empower the said Harden & Howell, or their assigns, to use and sell said printing machine, and no other, to the full end of the terms for which said letters patent are or may he granted, the said sum of twenty-five hundred dollars being accepted by the said Campbell Printing-Press and ¡Manufacturing Company to cover all claims whatsoever for the past use of the machine by any party or parties whatsoever, and for all future use thereof. And tlie said Campbell Printing-Press and Manufacturing Company hereby releases all claims for costs of said suit that they have against said ¡Harden & Howell in the case cf the Campbell Printing-Press and ¡Manufacturing Company against Harden & Howell, and all claims for liabilities that said Campbell Printing-Press and Manufacturing Company may have against said Harden & Rowell, or their assigns, for the use and sale of said machine. This discharge, however, is not to ¡be understood as extending to relieve the Duplex Printing-Press Company, in any maimer, from any liability for its manufacture and sale of the said machine."
As this suit was brought against the user of a single machine which embodied (he patented improvements, and as the complainant, for a considera (ion of |2,500, has licensed the defendants to use this machine, and has waived damages for past use, and as there is no proof that the defendants have any intent to purchase any other of the alleged infringing machines, we think that the controversy bet.weeu the parties to this suit has been substantially settled, and that, so far as this particular controversy is concerned, there is nothing left for the court to determine.
Appeals dismissed, without costs to either party in this court.