opinion: EUREKA CO. et al. v. HENNEY MOTOR CO.
  No. 6313.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Aug. 3, 1937.
  Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., C. E. Sheldon, of Sterling, 111., and Toulmin & Toulmin, of Dayton, Ohio (Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., C. E. Sheldon. of Sterling, 111., H. A. Toulmin and H. A. Toulmin, Jr., both of Dayton, Ohio, of counsel), for appellants.
  Russell Wiles and George A. Chritton, both of Chicago, 111., Charles H. Green, of Freeport, 111., and William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del. (Chritton, Wiles, Davies, Hirschl & Dawson, of Chicágo, 111., of counsel), for appellee.
  Before BUFFINGTON and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
  Rehearing denied Oct. 19, 1937.
  BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
  This case concerns burial hearses having a movable casket table adapted to being projected laterally outside a side door of a hearse so as to receive a coffin and thereafter to be turned back into a longitudinal position in the hearse. It will be seen that the hearse could in this way stand sideways along a curb and not at right angles and stop traffic. This structure was embodied in patent No. 1,721,391, granted July 16, 1929, to Heise. Subsequently one Henney acquired an exclusive license of the patent to make, use, and sell the patented hearse. Thereafter he granted a sublicense to the Eureka Company, the plaintiff. It brought the present suit against the Henney Motor Company, which had acquired Henney’s right to the patent, charging unfair competition and praying an injunction restraining defendants from making alleged misstatements as to plaintiff’s interest in the patent. On final hearing, the court below, in an opinion reported in (D.C.) 14 F.Supp. 764, 766, dismissed the bill. Thereafter Eureka took this appeal. Reference to such opinion obviates restatement of the voluminous proofs and contentions of the parties.
  In the final analysis the case narrows to the issue stated by the lower court in its opinion as follows: “Can Eureka sell Heise parts or tables to hearse manufacturers separate and apart from finished hearses ? The real controversy between the parties hinges upon the answer to that-question. If Eureka can sell such separate parts, then its nonexclusive license was not forfeited and the alleged acts of unfair competition on the part of defendant are not justified. On the other hand, if Eureka cannot sell such separate parts its non-exclusive license was forfeited and the advertisements and statements of defendant may be justified.”
  On the hearing before us both parties ask us to determine this question and end the controversy. The pertinent provisions of the sublicense to Eureka are as follows: “The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee a nonexclusive license to make in its principal place of business wherever situated, and at no other place or places and to use and sell in the United States and throughout the world hearses and other vehicles embodying the inventions disclosed or claimed in said above identified applications for letters patent. * * * said grant to be subject to the following terms and conditions. * * * The Licensee agrees to keep accurate books of account showing dates of shipment or delivery of each and every side loading hearse (or assembly of principal parts used in making hearses) shipped or delivered by Licensee during the term of this agreement, said books to clearly show the name and address of each customer and the serial number of each hearse shipped to each customer. * * * Licensee agrees to use its best efforts to promote the sale of side loading hearses. Should Licensee during any calendar year during the term of this agreement fail to manufacture and sell a minimum of Twenty hearses embodying side loading features, it is agreed that said failure of Licensee to so manufacture and sell shall automatically terminate this agreement.”
  After argument and full consideration of the terms of the sublicense, we are of opinion Eureka had no right to sell Heise parts or tables to hearse manufacturers separate and apart from finished hearses and, so holding, the decree of the court dismissing the bill, on account of our so construing the sublicense, is affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama