Goss

This is the second appeál of the above-entitled case. Our decision in the first appeal is reported in 82 F.(2d) 476 . We remanded the case to the trial judge for a specific finding on the question as to whether or not the implied license covered IS of the 18 new kilns which had been erected by the appellee, wherein appellants’ patent, methods, and apparatus were in use. The trial judge, in pursuance of the remand, found that the implied license covered all the new kilns except three. The character of the finding will be indicated by the following quotation therefrom: “The contract by its terms constituted an implied license to defendant to use plaintiffs’ improved methods of kiln drying in the first kiln as revised and in said fifteen kilns as rebuilt.”

In pursuance of this finding, the trial court entered an interlocutory decree in accordance with the remand. From this interlocutory decree the appellants, who were owners of the patents, have taken this appeal.

Their principal contention is that the finding of the trial court is not justified by the evidence. They claim that at most the oral agreement gave an implied license to the installation of the appellants’ apparatus and…