Coburn v. Clark
| Decision Date | 12 March 1883 |
| Citation | 15 F. 804 |
| Parties | COBURN and another v. CLARK. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Overall & Judson, for complainants.
John M. and Ch. Krum, for defendant.
It is unadvisable on a preliminary motion to express an opinion concerning the merits of a controversy to be determined at final hearing. It seems that the United States circuit court of the southern district of New York has held, on final hearing in a case before it, that plaintiffs' patents are valid, the decree in which case is for the purposes of this motion to be considered conclusive. It also appears that Judge McCRARY, of this circuit, acting upon such adjudication, and possibly other matters presented, has awarded preliminary injunctions.
Under such rulings nothing remains but to grant similar orders provided the alleged infringements are the same substantially or colorably. It has been the course of proceedings here for more than 20 years, and elsewhere, to accept a decision in a patent case, when made on the merits without collusion or on mere default, as an adequate basis for a preliminary injunction, so far as the validity of the patents is involved; leaving open for inquiry on such motion solely the question of infringement.
Under the rules governing such motions the decisions upholding the Stevens and Bryant patents must control. But what are those patents; that is, what do they cover? It is very easy to grant an order perfunctorily that defendant shall not infringe plaintiff's patents; but such a perfunctory order leaves open the whole subject of controversy. The defendant may deny an infringement, and, consequently, if his course of business does not infringe, what effect has the order? He is enjoined not to do what he has not done and what he does not propose to do. Hence the injunction order in such form would be a mere brutum fulmen. It is, therefore, essential to ascertain whether the defendant has prima facie infringed a valid patent, for the complainant has no right to drag into a court of equity as a defendant one who is not answerable to equitable proceedings. The defendant has a right to stand on his denials.
The primary inquiry is, the patents being considered valid, on what construction thereof plaintiff's rights are based. For the purposes of this preliminary investigation the patents must be considered valid, but there remains the question as to the true construction of the patents; i.e., for what devices were the patents lawfully granted. It is to be noted that there has been, at least as to one of the patents, a disclaimer and a reissue, from which the matter patented has to be determined.
It is not proposed now to go behind the decision made in the southern district of New York (which settled nothing definitely as to what was really patented) which hold the patents valid. Nor is it proper to consider otherwise than as authoritative the interlocutory views of Judge McCRARY, in this circuit, upon the patents in question. Hence there remain only two propositions to be considered: First, what are the contrivances covered by the patents? Second, has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edison Elec. Light Co. v. Beacon Vacuum Pump & Elec. Co.
...... Brush Electric Co. v. Accumulator Co., 50 F. 833;. Robertson v. Hill, 6 Fish.Pat.Cas. 465; Cary v. Domestic Co., 27 F. 299; Coburn v. Clark, 15 F. 804; Mallory Manufacturing Co. v. Hickok, 20 F. 116;. Green v. French, 4 Ban.& A. 169; Blanchard v. Reeves, 1 Fish.Pat.Cas. ......
-
Philadelphia Trust, Safe-Deposit & Insurance Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co. of New York
...... Sessions v. Gould, 49 F. 855; Electrical. Accumulation Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 47 F. 892;. Cary v. Spring-Bed Co., 27 F. 299; Coburn v. Clark, 15 F. 804; Siebert Cylinder Oil Cup Co. v. Michigan Co., 34 F. 33; Ladd v. Cameron, 25 F. 37. The decree of the circuit court is ......
-
Earl v. Southern Pac. Co.
...... John H. Miller (John L. Boone, of counsel), for complainant. . . Wheaton,. Kalloch & Kierce (L. L. Coburn and E. S. Pillsbury, of. counsel), for Robert Graham. . . J. E. Foulds (E. S. Pillsbury, of counsel), for Southern Pacific. Co. . . ...v. Accumulator Co., 50 F. 833; Robertson v. Hill, 6. Fish Pat.Cas. 465, Fed.Cas.No. 11,925; Cary v. Spring-Bed Co., 27 F. 299; Coburn v. Clark,. 15 F. 804; Manufacturing Co. v. Hickok, 20 F. 116;. Green v. French, 4 Ban.& A. 169, Fed.Cas.No. 5,757; Blanchard v. Reeves, 1 Fish.Pat.Cas. ......
-
Societe Anonyme du Filtre Chamberland Systeme Pasteur v. Allen
...grounds, but new and important facts have been developed and presented. The case, therefore, must stand on its own merits.' In Coburn v. Clark, 15 F. 804, Judge Treat adverts to necessity of giving careful attention, upon an application for preliminary injunction to the question of confinin......