Owen v. Perkins Oil Well cementing Co.
| Citation | 2 F.2d 247 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 4275.,4275. |
| Parties | OWEN v. PERKINS OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ernest L. Wallace and Joseph F. Westall, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
On the 27th day of August, 1923, a preliminary injunction was granted in a suit instituted by the appellee for infringement of letters patent for a method of cementing oil wells. On March 3, 1924, the appellant was adjudged guilty of contempt for a violation of the injunction thus granted, and soon thereafter moved the court to dissolve the preliminary injunction, as interpreted and construed on the hearing of the contempt proceeding. The motion was denied, and the present appeal is prosecuted from the interlocutory order or decree refusing to dissolve the injunction. The principal controversy in the case arises out of the second claim of the patent, which reads as follows:
"The method of cementing oil wells which consists of forcing cement down through the regular well casing by means of water pressure, the water being separated from the cement by a suitable barrier, forcing the cement up outside the casing, and holding the cement in position under the water pressure until the cement hardens."
The appellant contends that the method employed by him does not infringe, first, because he uses mud instead of water; second, because he does not use a barrier to separate the water from the cement; and, third, because he does not hold the cement in position under water pressure until the cement hardens.
These several contentions were fully considered by the court below on the hearing of the application for a preliminary injunction, and on the hearing of the proceeding for contempt, and after such consideration that court reached the conclusion that the changes thus made did not change the method described in the patent or obviate the charge of infringement. The question before us now is, not the correctness of that ruling, but did the court abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, or in refusing to dissolve it?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Treasure Co. v. United States
...court actions (Nos. 507385 and 507386) were brought against Union, but we are not here concerned with them. 10 Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co., 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 247; Kendall v. Trico Products Corp., 6 Cir., 31 F.2d 522; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Callaway, 5 Cir., 135 F.2d 592......
-
Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Lab.
... ... Dexedrine is marketed in a unique, distinctive, non-functional, well-advertised color and shape combination which has acquired a secondary ... 8 Owen v. Perkins Oil Well cementing Co., 9 Cir., 1924, 2 F.2d 247; Kings County ... ...
-
Wilson v. Byron Jackson Co.
...abuse of discretion. Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. v. U. S. Consolidated Seeded Raisin Co. (C. C.A.) 182 F. 59; Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co. (C.C.A.) 2 F.2d 247; American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co. (C.C.A.) 202 F. 202; Sherman-Clay & Co. v. Searchlight Horn C......
-
Suzanne A. North v. Bank Of Am.L Corp.
...preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is within the sound discretion of the district court. Owen v. Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co., 2 F.2d 247, 247 (9th Cir. 1924). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1450 provides that an injunction issued by a state court prior to removal will remain......