Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Docket Number: 49.,48
• Citation: 56 F. 718
• Parties: STANDARD ELEVATOR CO. et al. v. CRANE ELEVATOR CO., (two cases.)
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

56 F. 718

STANDARD ELEVATOR CO. et al. v. CRANE ELEVATOR CO., (two cases.)

Nos. 48, 49.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 2, 1893

Hall &amp Brown, for appellants.

Raymond & Veeder, for appellee.

Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS, District Judge.

JENKINS District Judge.

The bills of complaint in these two cases were filed by the Crane Elevator Company to enjoin the alleged infringement of certain claims in several patents for improvements in hydraulic elevators, viz.: Claim 1, of patent No. 317,202 issued to George H. Reynolds May 5, 1885; claims 2, 4, and 6 of patent No. 328,614, issued to George H. Reynolds October 20, 1885; claim No. 3 of patent No. 248,908, issued to Cyrus W. Baldwin November 1, 1881; claims 1, 4, and 5 of patent No 456,107, issued to Cyrus W. Baldwin July 14, 1891; claims in patent No. 456,122, issued to George H. Reynolds July 14 1891; claims in patent No. 309,865, issued to Joseph Moore December 30, 1884; claims in patents No. 458,917, issued to George H. Reynolds September 1, 1891. Before answers to the bills, the complainants moved for injunctions pendente lite, which motions were heard upon bills and answers, and upon ex parte affidavits, and models constructed by the parties, respectively. The court below, at the hearing of the motions, granted preliminary injunctions on the first claim of patent No. 317,202, and on the second and fourth claims of patent No. 328,614, and on the first, second, and third claims of patent No. 458,917. The devices, the use of which was enjoined, are known as (1) the 'Bottom Water Discharge;' (2) the 'Air Escape;' (3) the 'Lever Device;' (4) the 'Compensatory Device.' The appeal involves the propriety of these preliminary injunctions. The answers deny infringement; deny invention, novelty, and public acquiescence.

The principles upon which courts of equity grant the writ of injunction in advance of a decree upon the merits are elementary. The purpose of the interlocutory writ is not to conclude the question of right, but to protect against material injury pending the litigation. In patent cases, to warrant the writ, not only must the infringement be without reasonable doubt, but the rights of the patentee must be clear. Failing prior adjudication in favor of the validity of the patent, there must be shown such continued public acquiescence in the exclusive right asserted as raises a presumption of...