Gambar halaman

The adjudication which will warrant the grant of a preliminary injunction may be a judgment in a trial at law, or a final decree in equity, which latter is held more persuasive evidence. A judgment by agreement, which is not collusive, is equally persuasive.4

(3) Favorable Decision in Interference. A decision in an interference between the parties to the suit, favorable to the plaintiff in the suit, is such an adjudication of plaintiff's right between the parties that a preliminary injunction will ordinarily issue against the respondent.5

Cas. 420;

1. Sickels v. Tileston, 4 Blatchf. (U. 521; Warner v. Bassett, 7 Fed. Rep. S.) 109; Parker v. Brandt, i Fish. Pat. 468. Cas. 58; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. Where defendant in prior action the (U. S.) 553; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. same as in the one to be decided, a preCas. 89; S. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 490. liminary injunction is granted almost

2. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 Woodb. & as a matter of course. Poppenhusen v.
M. (U. S.) 23; American etc. Purifier New York etc. Comb Co., 2 Fish. Pat.
Co. v. Christian, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 74; 5. C., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 184;
Cas. 42; United Nickel Co. v. Man- Clark v. Johnson, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat.
hattan Brass Co.. 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403; 8. c., 16 Blatchf. (U. S.)
Cas. 173; 16 Blatchf. (U. S.)_68; 495; s. C., 17Pat. Off. Gaz. 1401.
Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Miller, 8 Fed. And an adjudication of the patent by
Rep. 314; Blaisdell v. Puffer, 4 Bann. & the supreme court carries overwhelm-
Ard. Pat. Cas. 500; Blaisdell v. Dows, ing weight. American etc. Purifier Co.
4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 499; Odorless v. Christian, 2 Bann. & Ard, Pat. Cas.
Excavating Co. v. Lauman, 12 Fed. 42; s. C., 4 Dill. (U.S.) 448; America etc.
Rep. 788; Coburn v. Clarke, 24 Pat. Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Milling Co., 3
Off. Gaz. 899; Potter v. Fuller, 2 Fish. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 168.
Pat. Cas. 251.

A decision affirming the validity of a 3. Goodyear v. Muller, 3 Fish. Pat. patent will be followed in all cases ex

cept where evidence is brought forth Special Circumstances Connected with which, if produced in the former Adjudication which are Persuasive to case, would have lead to a different reGranting a Preliminary Injunction.—The sult therein. Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. wealth of the former defendant and his Rep. 37; Carey v. Domestic Spring Bed interest in defeating the patent, and the Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 38. fact of present defendant being con. But when the evidence is doubtful nected with former defendant. Col. where there have been a number of ad. gate v. Gold and Stock Tel. Co., 4 judications, the injunction will be Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 559.

granted. Seibert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. The defendant was interested in the Michigan Lubricator Co., 34 Fed. Rep. result of a former suit. Robertson v.

33. Hill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; s. C., 4 Pat. A writ of error taken to a former deOf. Gaz. 132; Robinson v. Randolph, cision favorable to the patent does not

Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 163; United destroy its authority to induce the States etc. Felting Co. v. Asbestos court to grant a preliminary injunction. Felting Co., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 828; Forbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. Birdsall v. Hagerstown etc. Mfg. Co., i 317; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 426; s. C., 6 s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; Morris v. Pat. Off. Gaz, 604.

Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; 4. Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. Day v. Hartshorn, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 32. (U. S.) 13; s. C., 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. 323; An extension of a patent, which was Grover Sewing Mach. Co. v. Williams, granted in the face of resistance on the a Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Potter v. Fuller, ground of lack of novelty, greatly 7 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251; McWilliams strengthens the presumption of validity Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, ii Fed. Rep. 419; of the patent. Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fish. 8. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177.

Pat. Cas. 396; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 89. Compare Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. Rep. 8. Smith v. Halkyard, 16 Fed. Rep.

(4) Adjudications Not Warranting Preliminary Injunction.-A preliminary injunction will not be granted because of a decision favorable to the patent on a motion for an attachment, or on a motion for a preliminary injunction, where the judgment or decree was collusive.3 The prior adjudication must have de. termined the point involved satisfactorily.4

Rep. 37

414; S. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1833; Holli- The action of the Patent Office in day v. Pickhardt, 12 Fed. Rep. 147; s. granting a reissue, after an exhaustive c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 420; Pentlarge v. discussion and examination of the art in Beeston, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 352; s. C., } which opposing interests were repre. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 142; Hanford sented, will induce the court to grant a v. Westcott, 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1181; preliminary injunction. Consolidated Barr Co. v. New York etc. Sprinkler Bunging Co. v. Schoenhofen Brewing Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 856.

Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 428. A preliminary injunction will in 1. Sargeant Mfg. Co. v. Woodruff, 5 such cases be granted even when a Biss. (U. S.) 444. patent is recent. Greenwood v. Brach- 2. Warner vi. Bassett, 19 Blatchf. (U. er, 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 115; 8. C.,_5 Bann. S.) 145; s. C., 7 Fed. Rep. 468. &'Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. c., 1 Fed. Rep. Contra, Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. 856.

While a defendant who has been de- 3. Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 5 feated in an interference with the com- Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 263; s. C., plainant, is not estopped from setting McCrary (U. S.) 155; S. C., 17 Pát. Off. up lack of novelty to defeat the inven- Gaz. 974; s. C., 1 Fed. Rep. 604. tion, yet if he had knowledge of the Consequently a decree entered by condition of the art at the time of his agreement in favor of the complainant application, a want of novelty in the in- after a decision in the suit declaring vention must be clearly apparent, or a the patent invalid, will have very little preliminary injunction will be granted. weight. Spring v. Domestic Sewing Smith v. Halkyard, 16 Fed. Rep. 414; Mach. Co., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 6. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1833; Greenwood 427; s. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 721. v. Bracher, i Fed. Rep. 856; s. C., 5 4. Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Miller, 11 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. c., 17 Fed. Rep: 718. See Coburne v. Clark, Pat. Off. Gaz. 1151.

24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 899. Compare, however, Thompson Ordinarily, the considerations which American Bank Note Co., 35 Fed. Rep. would induce a court to disregard a prior 203; Minneapolis Harvester Works v. decision, must be such as would justify McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 28 setting aside a verdict. Parker v. Brant, Fed. Rep. 565.

i Fish. Pat. Cas. 58; Thayer v. Wales, Where the defeated party to an inter- 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130; s. c., 2 Blatchf. ference had acquiesced in the judgment (U. S.) 170; American etc. Þavement awarding priority to the opposite party, Co. v. Elizabeth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; had disclaimed the matter in interfer- Tilghman v. Mitchell, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. ence and taken out a more limited 615. patent, these facts should have great Where the evidence is different, the weight in favor of granting a prelimi- court will not be bound by a decision nary injunction where a defense of lack in another circuit. Edgarton v. Furst of novelty is set up. Reck etc. Co. v. etc. Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 450; S.C., 10 Lindsay, 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 63.

Biss. (Ů. S.) 402; s. C., 2i Pat. Off. Gaz. This doctrine does not hold where 261; U. S. Stamping Co. v. King, 17 the decision in the interference has not Blatchf. (U. S.) 55; s. C., 4 Bann. & been acquiesced in by the defeated Ard. Pat. Cas. 469; 8. C., 7 Fed. Rep. party. Minneapolis Harvester Works 860; s. C., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1399; Bailey V. McCormick Harvesting Mach Co., etc. Wringing Mach. Co. v. Adams, 3 28 Fed. Rep. 565.

Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 96; Albany Between whom Binding.–The adjudi. Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 26 Fed. cation in an interference is only bind- Rep. 313; Lockwood v. Faber, 27 Fed. ing between the parties and privies. Rep. 63. And small weight will be Barr Co. v. New York etc. Sprinkler given where verdicts have been obCo., 32 Fed. Rep. 79.

tained on inconsistent and contradictory


[ocr errors]

(5) Plaintiff's Laches.-An unreasonable delay to prosecute an infringer after having acquired information of the infringement, will induce the court to refuse a preliminary injunction.

(6) Willingness of Defendant to Accept License.—Where the defendant will agree to pay a reasonable license fee and accept a license, the court may be especially induced where plaintiff sells licenses to refuse a preliminary injunction. This does not hold


[ocr errors]

claims. Parker v. Sears, I Fish. Pat. firmative encouragement to continue
Cas. 93. Or different construction of the the infringement, does not induce the
patent. Mowry v. Grand St. R. Co., court to refuse. Collignon v. Hayes, 8
10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 89; s. C., 5 Fish. Fed. Rep. 912; s. C., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz.
Pal. Cas. 587. Or where the results of 447.
previous trials were conflicting. Allen Where the defendants had been ac-
v. Sprague, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 567; customed to make and repair pieces of
Batten v. Silliman, 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) a machine for plaintiff and manufacture
124; Grover etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v. them for others, with plaintiff's knowl-
Williams, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Eastern edge, preliminary injunction refused.
Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 35 Fed. Rep. Amazeen Mach, Co. v. Knight, 39 Fed.

Rep. 612.
New Defense or Evidence.—Or where Delay During Pendency of Other Suita.
a new point of defense is made, or -Where a plaintiff has proceeded to
new evidence produced. Lockwood bring suits against other infringers
v. Faber, 27 Fed. Rep. 33; Ladd whereby the validity of the patent might
0. Cameron, 25

Fed. Rep.

37; be determined, a delay to bring suit Bailey etc. Wringing. Mach. Co. v. against a particular defendant, after Adams, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 96. knowledge of an infringement by him,

1. Parker v. Sears, i Fish. Pat. Cas. is not laches. Green v. French, 4 Bann. 93; Jones v. Merrill, 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 169; s. C., 16 Pat. Off. 401; Cooper v. Mathews, 5 Pa. L. J. 38; s. Gaz, 215; Van Hook v. Pendleton, i c., 8 L. R. 413; North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 187; McWilliams Mfg. Blatchf. (U. S.) 70; Whitney v. Roles- Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. Rep. 419; s. C., tone, Mach. W ks., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz.908; 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177; Rumford ChemS. C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 170; ical Works v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) Goodyear v. Housinger, 3 Fish. Pat. 179; s. C., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz, 600. Cas. 147; s. C., 2 Biss. (U.S.) 1; Morris For length of time not laches, see 0. Lowell Mfg.Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. Brick v. Staten Island R. Co., 25 Fed. 67; Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. (U. Rep. 553: S.) 361; Sloat v. Plympton, 2 Whart. An injunction may be withheld until Dig: 365; Sperry v. Řibbans, 3 Bann. & the complainant explains his apparent Ard. Pat. Cas. 260; Ballow Shoe Mach. laches. Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator Co. v. Dizer, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. etc. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 496. 540; Tillinghast v. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 2. Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 388; s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 739; Ladd Blatchf. (U. S.) 85; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. 2. Cameron, 25 Fed. Rep. 37; Hurlburt Cas. 410; Colgate v. Gold & Stock Tel. v. Carter, 39 Fed. Rep. 802.

Co., 16 Blatchf. (U.S.) 583; S.C., 4 Bann. Especially where the plaintiff has ac- & Ard. Pat. Cas. 415; š. c., 16 Pat. Off. quiesced with the understanding that Gaz. 583; Blake v. Greenwood Cemthe compensation shall be fixed by etery, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 342; s. C., 3 agreement, and the defendant is willing Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 112; s. C., 13 to pay what the court will allow. Pat. Off. Gaz. 1046. Smith v. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 3 Especially in cases where there are Blatchf. (U. S.) 545.

other considerations this is a make A delay of three months is not un- weight. Howev. Newton, 2 Fish. Pat. reasonable. Union Paper Bag etc. Co. Cas. 531; Forbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. 0. Binney, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166. Pat. Cas. 317; Potter v. Schenck, 1 Biss.

He must, however, either know that (U. S.) 515; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 82; that is an infringement or have means Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. of knowing.

Wortendyke v. White, 2 Cas. 67; Livingston v. Jones, 2 Fish. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 23.

Pat. Cas. 207; 5. C., 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) Mere forbearance to sue without af. 330; Batten v. Silliman, 3 Wall. Jr. (C.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

where the plaintiff is able and willing to supply the market demand. 1

(7) Ability of Defendant to Respond in Damages.—The ability? or inability of the defendant to pay the profits or damages that may be adjudged or decreed, is a consideration, though not a controlling one, 4 with the court.

(8) Contractual Relation Between the Parties.--A contractual relation existing between the parties by which the patent has been treated as valid, will induce the court to grant a preliminary injunction.5

(9) Infringement Not Clear.-Where the infringement of complainant's patent by defendant's device is not clear, the injunction will be refused.6 What is sufficient evidence of infringement is

C.) 124; McMillan v. Conrad, 16 Fed. the plaintiff uses the patented article.
Rep. 128; Hoe v. Boston etc. Advero Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Eastman Dry
tiser Corp., 14 Fed. Rep. 914; S. C., 23 Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159.
Pat. Off. Gaz. 1124; National Hat Risk caused to the public by stopping
Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Hedden, 29 Fed. the use of a device. Root v. R. Co.,
Rep. 147:

40 Fed. Rep. 760. 1. Baldwin v. Shultz, 9 Blatchf. (U. 8. Burr v. Kimbark, 28 Fed. Rep. 574; S.) 494; S. C., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 75; s. C., Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Ham Mfg. 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 315.

Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 618; American Paper 2. Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Barrel Co. v. Laraway, 28 Fed. Rep. Pat. Cas. 67; Guidet v. Palmer, 6 Fish. 141; Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter, 34 Pat. Cas. 82; s. C., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) Fed. Rep. 745; Goddard v. Wilde, 17 217; Pullman v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., Fed. Rep. 845; Goodyear v. Congress 4 Hughes (U. S.) 236; s. C., 5 Fed. Rep. Rubber Co., 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 449. 72; 6. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 224; Dorsey Limitation. But not where complainetc. Rake Co. v. Bradey Mfg. Co., I ant does not come in with clean hands. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 330; s. C., 12 Crowell v. Parmenter, 3 Bann. & Ard. Blatchf. (U. S.) 202; Tillinghast v. Pat. Cas. 480; s. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 388; s. c., 23 Pat. 360. Off. Gaz. 139; National Hat Pouncing 6. High on Inj. 606; Parker v. Sears, Mach. Co. v. Hedden, 29 Fed. Rep. 147; i Fish. Pat. Cas. 93; Dodge v. Caid, 2 Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Eastman Dry Fish. Pat. Cas. 116; Jones v. Osgood, 3 Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159; John- Fish. Pat. Cas. 591; s. C., 6 Blatchf. (U. son v. Aldrich, 40 Fed. Rep. 675; Hurl. S.) 435; Grover etc. Sewing Mach, Co. bart v. Carter, 39 Fed. Rep. 802. v. Williams, 2 Bish. Pat. Cas. 133;

3. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. American Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, S.) 250; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; Marks v. Corr, Goodyear v. Muller, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 11 Fed. Rep. 900; s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gai. 420.

94; Cross v. Livermore, 9 Fed. Rep. 4. But in a clear case the defendant 607; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 139; Ballow cannot insist on being allowed to con- Shoe Mach. Co, v. Dizer, 5 Bann. & tinue his infringement, although able to Ard. Pat. Cas. 540; Pullman v. Balti. pay the damages, even when the incon- more etc. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 72; s. C., venience caused by the grant of the in- 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 224; s. c., 4 Hughes junction is very great. Sickels v. Mitch- (U. S.) 236; Zinssler v. Cooledge, 17 ell, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 548.

Fed. Rep. 538; Fraim v. Sharon Valley The fact that defendant is manufac- etc. Iron Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 457; Hamturing under a patent, will in some cases merschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. prevent the granting of a preliminary Rep. 621; American Fire Hose Mfg. injunction. Celluloid Co. 2. Eastman Co. v. Calahan Co., 4. Fed. Rep: 50; Dry Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159. Judson L. Thompson Mfg.Co. v. Hath

But it must be set up in the answer. eway, 41 Fed. Rep. 519; Russel v. Hyde, Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. Rep. 914.

39 Fed. Rep. 614; Morss v. Knapp, 39 And that he is not using his alleged Fed. Rep. 608; Thompson v. Rand infringing article in the manner in which Avery Supply Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 112; stated in the note.1

(10) Public Acquiescence.-An exclusive possession of some duration2 will influence the court to grant a preliminary injunction. This possession should be open and notorious, 3 and

Norton Door Check etc. Co. v. Hall, 37 Wash. (U. S.) 584;s.C., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. Fed. Rep. 691; Carey v. Miller, 34 Fed. 516; Sargent v. Carter, i Fish. Pat. Rep. 392; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. St. Cas. 277; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Louis etc. Supply Co., 25 Fed. Rep. Story (U. S.) 171; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. 491.

Cas. 257; Morse etc. Pen Co. v. EstA lack of clearness of infringement erbrook etc. Pen Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. may arise from a dubious construction 515; Hovey v. Stephens, i Woodb. & of the patent. Dickerson v. De la Verne M. (U. S.) 290; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. Refrigerating Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 143. 479; Cook v. Earnest, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas.

1. Evidence of infringement held suf- 396; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Ğaz. 89; Brooks ficient to induce the court to grant a v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. preliminary injunction.

C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Gibson v. An admission of past infringement, Betts, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 163; Woodeven when coupled with the declaration worth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M. (C. that the defendants did not intend to Ş.) 135; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625; continue the use of the infringing de- Hussey v. Whitely, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. vice. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington 120; s. C., 1 Bond (U. S.) 407; Potter v. Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 324; Jenkins v. Muller, 2 Fish. Pat, Cas. 465; Miller v. Greenwald, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Good- Androscoggin Pulp Co., 5 Fish. Pat. year v. Berry, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439; s.c., Cas, 340 s. C., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 142; 2 Bond (U. S.) 189; Potter v. Crowell, s. c., i Pat. Off. Gaz. 409; Parker v. 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 112; Rumford Chem- Brandt i Fish. Pat. Cas. 58; Sargent ical Works v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553; White 179; s. C., II Pat. Off. Gaz. 600; White v. Heath, 1o Fed. Rep. 291; s. C., 22 v. Heath, 10 Fed. Rep. 291; s. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 500; Bar Co. v. New Pat. Off. Gaz. 500; American Bell York etc. Sprinkler Co., 32 Fed. Rep.79; Teleph. Co. v. Ghegan, 23 Pat. Of. Gaz. Tillinghast '. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 388; 537.

s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 739; White v. SurThe fact that the patent under which dam, 41 Fed. Rep. 790; Schneider v. the defendants are working, on its face Missouri Glass Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 582. shows that its working involves an in- Where exclusive possession for a fringement of the complainant's patent. term of years alleged, the reason for Goodyear v. Evans, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) the grant of the preliminary injunction 121; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 390.

is the presumption of the validity of the Evidence of infringement held suf- patent arising from the acquiescence of ficient in following cases: Boston Elec- the public in that right, which would tric Co. v. Holtzer etc. Electric Co., 41 not exist unless the right was well Fed. Rep. 390; Stuart v. Thornton, 37 founded. This public acquiescence has Fed. Rep. 90; Maltby v. Graham, 35 weight according to the degree of util. Fed. Rep. 206.

ity of the invention, and the number of The question of infringement arises persons whose trade or business is afanew in each particular case independ- fected by it. Foster v. Moore, i Curt. ently of prior adjudication. Hammer- (U. S.) 279; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 schlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. Rep. Curt. (U. S.) 553. 621.

Accordingly, the shortness of the time 2. Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine (U. after the grant, where articles have S.) 441; s. C., 1 Robb. Pat. Cas. 477; been sold publicly and separately, and Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) have been so sold and used without dis361; Isaac v. Cooper, 4 Wash. (U. S.) pute, is immaterial. Orr v. Littlefield, 259; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 332; Japó i Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 13; S. C., 2 pan v. National Bank Note Co., 2 Fish. Robb Pat. Cas. 323. Pat.Cas. 195; s.c., Blatchf. 4 (U.S.) 509; 3. Potter v. Whitney, 3 Fish. Pat. Goodyear v. Railroad, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. Cas. 77; s. c., 1 Low (U.S.) 87; Grover 626; s. C., 2 Wall. Jr. (C.C.) 356; Wash- etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v Williams, 2 burn v. Gould, 3 Story (U. S.) 122; 5. C., Fish. Pat. Čas. 133. 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206; Ogle v. Edge, 4 An exclusive use or sale of the inven

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »