Sessions v. Gould

• Decision Date: 29 January 1892
• Citation: 49 F. 855
• Parties: SESSIONS v. GOULD et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

49 F. 855

SESSIONS v. GOULD et al.

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

January 29, 1892

Chas E. Mitchell, for complainants.

Briesen & Knauth, for defendants.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

Except for the fact that in the exhibit marked 'Defendants' Catch A' the pin on the upper catch-plate is not cast with the plate, and in the exhibit 'Defendants' Catch B' there is no pin at all, these catches are manifestly counter-parts of complainants' goods, and infringements of the patents sued upon. A careful examination of the affidavits and circulars leaves little doubt in my mind that unless restrained by injunction, the defendants intend to manufacture and sell such goods. Whether they have already made actual sales, or have only given out samples of goods which they offer to sell, is immaterial, where there is reasonable ground to apprehend that they are about to sell the infringing articles. White v. Heath, 10 F. 291. If in fact they have no such intention, a preliminary injunction will do them no harm, and they cannot complain if by making and parting with Exhibits A and B, (and they do not deny that they did so,) and by issuing circulars to the trade, they have induced a belief that such is their intention.

The testimony as to the acquiescence of the public for many years in the validity of the patents sued upon is convincing, and sufficiently fortifies the presumption arising from the patents themselves to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction. The contention that, in view of the prior state of the art, they do not disclose any patentable invention, is not sufficiently clear and convincing to overthrow the case made out by the patents themselves and the public acquiescence in their validity. The defenses of prior public use, and (as to the Sessions, 1882, patent) that the patentee appropriated the ideas and model of the real inventor, and falsely averred them to be his own, should not be disposed of on ex parte affidavits, but reserved for final hearing.

The defendants' goods (Exhibits A and B) embody the improvement of the Taylor patent of 1878, covering the clutching device of a loop, engaging over a shoulder projecting from the upper catch, thereby securing a wider and stronger bearing than did the dowel engaging with a hole in the tang of the upper-catch, as arranged in his patent of 1872. The absence of the cast pin of the upper catch, whose sole function is to assist in...