Williams v. McNeely
| Decision Date | 06 June 1893 |
| Docket Number | 44. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. McNEELY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Ernest Howard Hunter, for complainants.
S. S. Hollingsworth, for respondents.
An application for a preliminary injunction is not, in patent causes any more than in others, an available short cut to an adjudication upon asserted, but disputed and doubtful, rights. Where, upon such a motion, the defendant avers that the subject-matter of the infringement alleged differs substantially from that of the patent, the question thus presented ought not, in my judgment, to be decided upon the ex parte affidavits, but should be left, unless the defendant's contention be plainly frivolous and unsupported, entirely open for decision upon the evidence as finally presented.
In this case it is not necessary that I should express any opinion upon the several points which have been discussed by counsel. It is sufficient to say that a conflict of expert opinion as to the fact of infringement has been disclosed, which possibly may be reconciled, or be made easy of determination, by cross-examination of the respective witnesses, but which cannot now be decided in favor of the complainants without danger of unjustly interfering with the business of the defendants, whose financial responsibility is not questioned, and who are but users, and not manufacturers or vendors, of the mechanism in question. The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aeolian Co. v. Cunningham Piano Co.
...defendant is within the rule followed in Ney v. Drill Co. (C.C.) 56 F. 152, Welsbach v. Incandescent Co. (C.C.) 100 F. 648, Williams v. McNeely (C.C.) 56 F. 265, Blakey Mfg. Co., 95 F. 136, 37 C.C.A. 27, and other cases, in that it also is manufacturing under an issued patent, is met by the......
-
Blakey v. National Mfg. Co.
...Co. v. Accumulator Co., 5 C. C. A 202, 55 F. 485; Van Camp Packing Co. v. Cruikshanks Bros. Co., 33 C.C.A. 280, 90 F. 814; Williams v. McNeely, 56 F. 265. The question infringement, as it was presented in the prior adjudications which have been brought to the attention of the court, is not ......
-
Home Ins Co. v. Nobles
... ... therefore, in my opinion, nothing to call for the immediate ... exercise of the restraining power of the court. Williams ... v. McNeely, 56 F. 265; Pott v. Altemus, 60 F ... 339. Complainant's motion for a preliminary injunction ... ...
-
Pott v. Altemus
... ... in the cause, should await determination until the coming in ... of the proofs in the regular way. Williams v ... McNeely, 56 F. 265 ... I do ... not intend to suggest that the present motion has been made ... for the purpose of anticipating ... ...