Perfection Cooler Co. v. Rose Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1909
• Citation: Perfection Cooler Co. v. Rose Mfg. Co., 175 F. 120 (S.D. N.Y. 1909)
• Parties: PERFECTION COOLER CO. v. ROSE MFG. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

175 F. 120

PERFECTION COOLER CO. v. ROSE MFG. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

November 22, 1909

Ralph L. Scott (Philip Mauro and Allen S. Pattison, of counsel) for complainant.

Charles Neave and William G. McKnight, for defendants.

HOLT District Judge.

The general statement in the case of Edward Barr Co. v. N.Y & N.H. Automatic Sprinkler Co. (C.C.) 32 F. 79, that, if a patent has successfully undergone an interference in the Patent Office, the validity of the patent will be presumed as between the parties to the interference, is, I think, to be construed in the light of later decisions as applying only to cases in which the only question in controversy is priority of invention. When the claim is made that a patent is invalid because anticipated by other patents, or publication, or by public use more than two years before the application, the fact of a decision in an interference proceeding in the Patent Office does not raise a sufficient presumption that the complainant on final hearing will be entitled to a permanent injunction to justify the issuing of a preliminary injunction. Dickerson v. De La Vergne...