Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 288. |
| Citation | 153 F. 907 |
| Parties | HALL SIGNAL CO. et al. v. GENERAL RY. SIGNAL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Edmund Wetmore, Howard L. Osgood, J. William Ellis, and Macomber & Ellis, for appellants.
William Houston Kenyon and Henry D. Williams, for appellees.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
It is a cardinal principle of equity jurisprudence that a preliminary injunction shall not issue in a doubtful case. Unless the court be convinced with reasonable certainty that the complainant must succeed at final hearing the writ should be denied. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia R.R co. (C.C.) 75 F. 1004.
A record, containing 868 printed pages, composed of ex parte affidavits, patents for complicated electrical machinery and a great mass of other matter, much of it, apparently, having remote relevancy to the present issues, has been presented. To reach a clear and satisfactory conclusion upon many of the vital questions involved would, upon such a record, be difficult if not impossible.
The entire aspect of the case may be changed at final hearing and for obvious reasons the discussion of the issues involved should be restricted to the narrowest limits possible.
We have reached the conclusion that a preliminary injunction should not be issued and will briefly state the considerations which have led to this result.
First. The five patents in suit relate to a difficult, complex and abstruse subject, namely, the transmission of signals on railways by electricity. Because of its complicated character and the innumerable details involved it is peculiarly a case where the court should have the benefit of the opinions of those skilled in the art tested and clarified by cross-examination.
Second. The patents have never been adjudicated or judicially construed.
Third. The defendants assert that the patents are invalid for lack of novelty and invention and that the claims of three of the patents are not infringed.
The answer sets up 21 American and eight prior English patents and alleges four instances of prior use. It is also contended that if the patents are sustained the prior art renders a broad construction of the claims impossible.
We do not intend to pass upon these defenses further than to say that we cannot consider them as wholly devoid of merit. On the contrary we have examined the prior art sufficiently to be convinced that it is quite possible that at final hearing the court may feel constrained to limit the claims to a much...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...480, 77 L.Ed. 825. 5. Compare Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed. 804. 6 Hall Signal Co. v. General R. Signal Co., 2 Cir., 153 F. 907; A. H. Bull Steamship Co. v. National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Assn., 2 Cir., 250 F.2d 332, 337. 7 It became effect......
-
Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 66 Civ. 1532.
...2. It appears to a "reasonable certainty" that Rosemont will ultimately succeed on the merits of the action. Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co., 153 F. 907, 908 (2 Cir. 1907); see Societe Comptoir de L'industrie, etc., v. Alexander's Dept. Stores, Inc., 299 F.2d 33, 35 (2 Cir. 3. Suf......
-
State v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... general principle in the law of injunctions, which governs in ... courts of ... should be denied." Hall Signal Co. v. Railway Signal ... Co., 153 F. 907, 82 C. C. A. 653; City ... ...
-
Sierra Club v. Hickel
...with reasonable certainty that the complainant must succeed at final hearing the writ should be denied." Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co., 153 F. 907, 908 (2d Cir. 1907). In addition, before such a writ should issue, the applicant must show that it will suffer irreparable injury. T......