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.3 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 1. Sickels v. Tileston, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 109; Parker v. Brandt, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 58; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U.S.) 553; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 490. 2. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. Š.) 23; American etc. Purifier Co. v. Christian, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 42; United Nickel Co. v. Manhattan Brass Co.. 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 173; 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 68; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Miller, 8 Fed. Rep. 314; Blaisdell v. Puffer, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 500; Blaisdell v. Dows, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 499; Odorless Excavating Co. v. Lauman, 12 Fed. Rep. 788; Coburn v. Clarke, 24 Pat. Off. Gaz.899; Potter v. Fuller, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251. 3. Goodyear v. Muller, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 420; Special Circumstances Connected with Adjudication which are Persuasive to Granting a Preliminary Injunction.-The wealth of the former defendant and his interest in defeating the patent, and the fact of present defendant being connected with former defendant. Colgate v. Gold and Stock Tel. Co., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 559. The defendant was interested in the result of a former suit. Robertson v. Hill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 132; Robinson v. Randolph, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 163; United States etc. Felting Co. v. Asbestos Felting Co., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 828; Birdsall v. Hagerstown etc. Mfg. Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 426; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 604. 4. Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. (U.S.) 13; s. c., 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. 323; Grover Sewing Mach. Co. v. Williams, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Potter v. Fuller, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251; McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, ir Fed. Rep. 419; 8. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177. Compare Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. Rep. 521; Warner v. Bassett, 7 Fed. Rep. 468. Where defendant in prior action the same as in the one to be decided, a preliminary injunction is granted almost as a matter of course. Poppenhusen v. New York etc. Comb Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 74; s. c., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 184; Clark v. Johnson, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403; s. c., 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 495; s. c., 17Pat. Off. Gaz. 1401. And an adjudication of the patent by the supreme court carries overwhelming weight. American etc. Purifier Co. v. Christian, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 42; s.C., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 448; America etc. Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Milling Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 168. A decision affirming the validity of a patent will be followed in all cases except where evidence is brought forth which, if produced in the former case, would have lead to a different result therein. Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. Rep. 37; Carey v. Domestic Spring Bed Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 38. But when the evidence is doubtful where there have been a number of adjudications, the injunction will be granted. Seibert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. Michigan Lubricator Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 33. A writ of error taken to a former decision favorable to the patent does not destroy its authority to induce the court to grant a preliminary injunction. Forbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 317; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; S. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; Day v. Hartshorn, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 32. An extension of a patent, which was granted in the face of resistance on the ground of lack of novelty, greatly strengthens the presumption of validity of the patent. Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 89. 5. 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,2 where the judgment or decree was collusive.3 The prior adjudication must have determined the point involved satisfactorily.4 414; s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1833; Holliday v. Pickhardt, 12 Fed. Rep. 147; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 420; Pentlarge v. Beeston, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 352; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 142; Hanford v. Westcott, 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1181; Barr Co. v. New York etc. Sprinkler Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 856. A preliminary injunction will in such cases be granted even when a patent is recent. Greenwood v. Bracher, 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 115; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. c., I Fed. Rep. 856. While a defendant who has been defeated in an interference with the complainant, is not estopped from setting up lack of novelty to defeat the invention, yet if he had knowledge of the condition of the art at the time of his application, a want of novelty in the invention must be clearly apparent, or a preliminary injunction will be granted. Smith v. Halkyard, 16 Fed. Rep. 414; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1833; Greenwood v. Bracher, 1 Fed. Rep. 856; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1151. v. Compare, however, Thompson American Bank Note Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 203; Minneapolis Harvester Works v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 565. Where the defeated party to an interference had acquiesced in the judgment awarding priority to the opposite party, had disclaimed the matter in interference and taken out a more limited patent, these facts should have great weight in favor of granting a preliminary injunction where a defense of lack of novelty is set up. Reck etc. Co. v. Lindsay, 18 Pat. Öff. Gaz. 63. This doctrine does not hold where the decision in the interference has not been acquiesced in by the defeated party. Minneapolis Harvester Works v. McCormick Harvesting Mach Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 565. Between Whom Binding.-The adjudi. cation in an interference is only binding between the parties and privies. Barr Co. v. New York etc. Sprinkler Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 79. The action of the Patent Office in granting a reissue, after an exhaustive discussion and examination of the art in which opposing interests were represented, will induce the court to grant a preliminary injunction. Consolidated Bunging Co. v. Schoenhofen Brewing Co.,28 Fed. Rep. 428. 1. Sargeant Mfg. Co. v. Woodruff, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 444. 2. Warner v. Bassett, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 145; s. c., 7 Fed. Rep. 468. Contra, Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. Rep. 37. 3. Kirby Bung_Mfg. Co. v. White, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 263; s. c., I McCrary (U. S.) 155; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 974; s. c., I Fed. Rep. 604. Consequently a decree entered by agreement in favor of the complainant after a decision in the suit declaring the patent invalid, will have very little weight. Spring v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 427; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 721. 4. Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Miller, II Fed. Rep. 718. See Coburne v. Clark, 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 899. Ordinarily, the considerations which would induce a court to disregard a prior decision, must be such as would justify setting aside a verdict. Parker v. Brant, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 58; Thayer v. Wales, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 130; s. c., 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 170; American etc. Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615. Where the evidence is different, the court will not be bound by a decision in another circuit. Edgarton v. Furst etc. Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 450; s. c., 10 Biss. (U. S.) 402; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 261; U. S. Stamping Co. v. King, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 55; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 469; s. c., 7 Fed. Rep. 860; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1399; Bailey etc. Wringing Mach. Co. v. Adams, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 96; Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 26 Fed. Rep. 313; Lockwood v. Faber, 27 Fed. Rep. 63. And small weight will be given where verdicts have been obtained on inconsistent and contradictory (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.1 (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 claims. Parker v. Sears, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93. Or different construction of the patent. Mowry v. Grand St. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 89; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 587. Or where the results of previous trials were conflicting. Allen v. Sprague, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 567; Batten v. Silliman, 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 124; Grover etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Williams, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Eastern Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 35 Fed. Rep. 752. New Defense or Evidence.-Or where a new point of defense is made, or new_evidence produced. Lockwood v. Faber, 27 Fed. Rep. 33; Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. Rep. 37; Bailey etc. Wringing Mach. Co. v. Adams, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 96. 1. Parker v. Sears, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93; Jones v. Merrill, 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 401; Cooper v. Mathews, 5 Pa. L. J. 38; s. c., 8 L. R. 413; North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. (U.S.) 70; Whitney v. Roles tone, Mach. Wks., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 908; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 170; Goodyear v. Housinger, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 147; s. c., 2 Biss. (U. S.) 1; Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 361; Sloat v. Plympton, 2 Whart. Dig. 365; Sperry v. Ribbans, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 260; Ballow Shoe Mach. Co. v. Dizer, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 540; Tillinghast v. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 388; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 739; Ladd v. Cameron, 25 Fed. Rep. 37; Hurlburt v. Carter, 39 Fed. Rep. 802. Especially where the plaintiff has acquiesced with the understanding that the compensation shall be fixed by agreement, and the defendant is willing to pay what the court will allow. Smith v. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 3 Blatchf. (U.S.) 545 A delay of three months is not unreasonable. Union Paper Bag etc. Co. v. Binney, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166. He must, however, either know that that is an infringement or have means of knowing. Wortendyke v. White, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 23. Mere forbearance to sue without af firmative encouragement to continue the infringement, does not induce the court to refuse. Collignon v. Hayes, 8 Fed. Rep. 912; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 447. Where the defendants had been accustomed to make and repair pieces of a machine for plaintiff and manufacture them for others, with plaintiff's knowledge, preliminary injunction refused. Amazeen Mach. Co. v. Knight, 39 Fed. Rep. 612. Delay During Pendency of Other Suits. -Where a plaintiff has proceeded to bring suits against other infringers whereby the validity of the patent might be determined, a delay to bring suit against a particular defendant, after knowledge of an infringement by him, is not laches. Green v. French, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 169; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 215; Van Hook v. Pendleton, t Blatchf. (U. S.) 187; McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. Rep. 419; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177; Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 179; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 600. For length of time not laches, see Brick v. Staten Island R. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 553. An injunction may be withheld until the complainant explains his apparent laches. Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator etc. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 496. 2. Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 85; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410; Colgate v. Gold & Stock Tel. Co., 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 583; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 415; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 583; Blake v. Greenwood Cemetery, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 342; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 112; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1046. Especially in cases where there are other considerations this is a make weight. Howe v. Newton, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Forbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 317; Potter v. Schenck, 1 Biss. (U. S.) 515; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 82; Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; Livingston v. Jones, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 207; s. c., 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 330; Batten v. Silliman, 3 Wall. Jr. (C. where the plaintiff is able and willing to supply the market demand.1 (7) Ability of Defendant to Respond in Damages. The ability2 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, 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. 1. Baldwin v. Shultz, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 494; s. C., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 75; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 315. 2. Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; Guidet v. Palmer, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 82; s. c., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 217; Pullman v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 4 Hughes (U. S.) 236; s. c., 5 Fed. Rep. 72; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 224; Dorsey etc. Rake Co. v. Bradey Mfg. Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 330; s. c., 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 202; Tillinghast v. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 388; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 139; National Hat Pouncing Mach. Co. v. Hedden, 29 Fed. Rep. 147; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Eastman Dry Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159; Johnson v. Aldrich, 40 Fed. Rep. 675; Hurl. bart v. Carter, 39 Fed. Rep. 802. 3. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Goodyear v. Muller, Fish. Pat. Cas. 420. 4. But in a clear case the defendant cannot insist on being allowed to continue his infringement, although able to pay the damages, even when the inconvenience caused by the grant of the injunction is very great. Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 548. The fact that defendant is manufacturing under a patent, will in some cases prevent the granting of a preliminary injunction. Čelluloid Co. v. Eastman Dry Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159. But it must be set up in the answer. Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. Rep. 914. And that he is not using his alleged infringing article in the manner in which the plaintiff uses the patented article. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Eastman Dry Plate etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 159. Risk caused to the public by stopping the use of a device. Root v. R. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 760. 5. Burr v. Kimbark, 28 Fed. Rep. 574; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Ham Mfg. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 618; American Paper Barrel Co. v. Laraway, 28 Fed. Rep. 141; Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter, 34 Fed. Rep. 745; Goddard v. Wilde, 17 Fed. Rep. 845; Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co., 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 449. Limitation. But not where complainant does not come in with clean hands. Crowell v. Parmenter, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 480; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 360. 6. High on Inj. 606; Parker v. Sears, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93; Dodge v. Caid, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 116; Jones v. Osgood, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 591; s. c., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 435; Grover etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Williams, 2 Bish. Pat. Cas. 133; American Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 189; Marks v. Corr, in Fed. Rep. 900; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz 94: Cross v. Livermore, 9 Fed. Rep. 607; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 139; Ballow Shoe Mach. Co. v. Dizer, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 540; Pullman v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 72; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 224; s. C., 4 Hughes (U. S.) 236; Zinssler v. Cooledge, 17 Fed. Rep. 538; Fraim v. Sharon Valley etc. Iron Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 457; Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. Rep. 621; American Fire Hose Mfg. Co. v. Calahan Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 50; Judson L. Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Hatheway, 41 Fed. Rep. 519; Russel v. Hyde, 39 Fed. Rep. 614; Morss v. Knapp, 39 Fed. Rep. 608; Thompson v. Rand Avery Supply Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 112; stated in the note.1 (10) Public Acquiescence.-An exclusive possession of some duration will influence the court to grant a preliminary injunction. This possession should be open and notorious, and Norton Door Check etc. Co. v. Hall, 37 Fed. Rep. 691; Carey v. Miller, 34 Fed. Rep. 392; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. St. Louis etc. Supply Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 491. A lack of clearness of infringement may arise from a dubious construction of the patent. Dickerson v. De la Verne Refrigerating Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 143. 1. Evidence of infringement held sufficient to induce the court to grant a preliminary injunction. An admission of past infringement, even when coupled with the declaration that the defendants did not intend to continue the use of the infringing device. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 324; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439; s. c., 2 Bond (U. S.) 189; Potter v. Crowell, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 112; Rumford Chemical Works v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 179; s. c., II Pat. Off. Gaz. 600; White v. Heath, 10 Fed. Rep. 291; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 500; American Bell Teleph. Co. v. Ghegan, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 537 The fact that the patent under which the defendants are working, on its face shows that its working involves an infringement of the complainant's patent. Goodyear v. Evans, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 121; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 390. Evidence of infringement held sufficient in following cases: Boston Electric Co. v. Holtzer etc. Electric Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 390; Stuart v. Thornton, 37 Fed. Rep. 90; Maltby v. Graham, 35 Fed. Rep. 206. The question of infringement arises anew in each particular case independently of prior adjudication. Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. Rep. 621. 2. Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine (U. S.) 441; s. c., 1 Robb. Pat. Cas. 477; Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 361; Isaac v. Cooper, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 259; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 332; Jappan v. National Bank Note Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 195; s. c., Blatchf. 4 (U. S.) 509; Goodyear v. Railroad, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 626; s. c., 2 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 356; Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story (U. S.) 122; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206; Ogle v. Edge, 4 Wash. (U.S.) 584; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 516; Sargent v. Carter, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 277; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U. S.) 171; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 257; Morse etc. Pen Co. v. Esterbrook etc. Pen Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515; Hovey v. Stephens, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 290; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 479; Cook v. Earnest, Fish. Pat. Cas. 396; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 89; Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean (U. S.) 250; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 118; Gibson v. Betts, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 163; Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 135; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 625; Hussey v. Whitely, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 120; s. c., 1 Bond (U. S.) 407; Potter v. Muller, 2 Fish. Pat, Cas. 465; Miller v. Androscoggin Pulp Co., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas, 340 s. c., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 142, s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 409; Parker v. Brandt 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 58; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553; White v. Heath, 10 Fed. Rep. 291; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 500; Bar Co. v. New York etc. Sprinkler Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 79; Tillinghast v. Hicks, 13 Fed. Rep. 388; S. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 739; White v. Surdam, 41 Fed. Rep. 790; Schneider v. Missouri Glass Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 582. Where exclusive possession for a term of years alleged, the reason for the grant of the preliminary injunction is the presumption of the validity of the patent arising from the acquiescence of the public in that right, which would not exist unless the right was well founded. This public acquiescence has weight according to the degree of utility of the invention, and the number of persons whose trade or business is affected by it. Foster v. Moore, 1 Curt. (U. S.) 279; Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553. Accordingly, the shortness of the time after the grant, where articles have been sold publicly and separately, and have been so sold and used without dispute, is immaterial. Orr v. Littlefield, Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 13; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 323. 3. Potter v. Whitney, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 77; s. c., 1 Low (U. S.) 87; Grover etc. Sewing Mach. Co. v Williams, 2 Fish. Pat. Čas. 133. An exclusive use or sale of the inven |