Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted
Decision Date | 07 January 1913 |
Docket Number | 1,920. |
Citation | 203 F. 493 |
Parties | WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS CO. v. OLMSTED. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Frank F. Reed and Edward S. Rogers, both of Chicago, Ill. (George D. Seymour, of counsel), for appellant.
Fred Gerlach, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant seeks the reversal of a decree denying a preliminary injunction in a suit for infringement of patents. As a rule the grant or refusal of a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court; and where the preliminary record discloses that the validity of the patents was in doubt, that the fact of infringement was uncertain and that, in view of such doubts and uncertainties, an injustice might be inflicted upon the defendant greater than any benefit that might accrue to complainant from the preliminary decree, the reviewing tribunal will not weigh the conflicting showings with respect to the facts of validity infringement, or comparative equities, but will let the case go to final hearing undisturbed, because abuse of discretion not made affirmatively to appear. Such is the doctrine of the cases cited by appellee. [1] But discretion (which must be legal discretion, not merely the individual view or will of the particular chancellor) does not extend to a refusal to apply well-settled principles of law to a conceded or indisputable state of facts. [2] If this is not so, Congress did a vain thing in providing at all for appeals from preliminary injunctional decrees.
From the record herein it appears that the following facts are either conceded or established beyond controversy: Appellant, manufacturer of firearms, is owner of patents 564,421, 599,587, 605,734, 659,928, and 839,390, for repeating, take-down, magazine, ejector, and cartridge-stop features of breech-loading shotguns; that the improvements are substantial and valuable, are susceptible of conjoint use, and are so used in making the modern Winchester repeating shotgun; that appellant has never licensed any one to manufacture its patented guns, but has itself made and marketed them to the extent of half a million in the last 15 years; that appellant has sought to control, not only the manufacture, but also the terms of sale, of its patented guns-- that is, has put price restrictions upon dealers into whose hands it sent its guns; that upon each gun sent out were placed notices of the patents and of the price restrictions; that the public and makers and dealers have acquiesced in the asserted validity of the patents (going back to 1896) and have respected appellant's rights as claimed both under the patents and the price restrictions; and that appellee, a retail dealer in firearms, with complete knowledge of each of the foregoing facts, somehow obtained a supply of appellant's patented guns, and was advertising and selling them at cut prices.
On these facts the law is that appellee by his acts was committing and threatening to continue willful trespasses upon a part of the territory within the patent monopoly that the owner had reserved. Henry v. Dick, 224 U.S. 1, 32 Sup.Ct. 364, 56 L.Ed. 645, Victor Co. v. The Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58, and numerous cases collated by appellant, [3] with none to the contrary cited by appellee or found by us.
The decree is reversed, with the direction to grant the preliminary injunction as prayed.
---------
Notes:
[1] Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Durham Duplex Razor Co. (D.C.) 197 F. 575; Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v Automobile S. Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 193 F. 658, 662; Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United Indurated Fibre Co., 87 F. 215, 30 C.C.A. 615; Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co., 56 F. 718, 6 C.C.A. 100; George Ertel Co. v. Stahl, 65 F. 519, 13 C.C.A. 31; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co. (C.C.) 64 F. 775; Brookfield et al. v. Elmer Glassworks (C.C.) 132 F. 312; Blakey v. National Mfg. Co., 95 F. 136, 37 C.C.A. 27.
[2] Charles E. Hires Co. v. Consumers' Co., 100 F. 809, 41 C.C.A. 71; Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co., 56 F. 718, 6 C.C.A. 100; American Cereal Co. v. Eli Pettijohn Cereal Co., 76 F. 372, 22 C.C.A. 236.
[3] Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1, 32 Sup.Ct. 364, 56 L.Ed. 645; Victor Co. v. The Fair, 123 F 424, 61 C.C.A. 58; Edison v. Smith Mercantile Co. (C.C.) 188 F. 925; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 22 Sup.Ct. 747, 46 L.Ed. 1058; The Fair v. Dover Mfg. Co., 166 F. 117, 92 C.C.A. 43; N. J. Patents Co. v. Schaeffer (C.C.) 159 F. 181; Id., 178 F. 276, 101 C.C.A. 540; Commercial Acetylene Co. v. Autolux Co. (C.C.) 181 F. 387; Dick v Milwaukee Off. Specialty Co. (C.C.) 168 F. 930; A. B. Dick Co. v. Henry (C.C.) 149 F. 424; Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Goldsmith Bros. (C.C.) 190 F. 205; Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene (C.C.) 191 F. 855; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery Co. (C.C.) 174 F. 252; Heaton P.B.F. Co. v. Eureka Spec. Co., 77 F. 288, 25 C.C.A. 267, 35 L.R.A. 728; Cortelyou v. Lowe, 111 F. 1005, 49 C.C.A. 671; Cortelyou v. Johnson, 145 F. 933, 76 C.C.A. 455; Rupp & W. Co. v. Elliott, 131 F. 730, 65 C.C.A. 544; Tubular Rivet Co. v. O'Brien (C.C.) 93 F. 200; AEolian Co. v. Juelg Co., 155 F. 119, 86 C.C.A. 205; Victor, etc., Co. v. Leeds & Catlin Co. (C.C.) 150 F. 147; Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor, etc., Co., 154 F. 58, 83 C.C.A. 170, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1027; Rubber Tire Co. v. Milwaukee Co., 154 F. 358, 83 C.C.A. 336; Indiana Co. v. Case Co., 154 F. 365, 83 C.C.A. 343; National...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nisonoff v. Irving Trust Co.
...a refusal or failure to follow clearly established principles of law properly applicable to facts not in dispute. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted (C. C. A.) 203 F. 493. Compare Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107, 112, 42 S. Ct. 427, 66 L. Ed. 848. Consequently the denial of th......
-
HOME OWNERS'LOAN CORPORATION v. Huffman
...or undisputable state of facts. Peterson v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 116 F. 2d 148, 151; Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmstead, 7 Cir., 203 F. 493, 494; In re A. Roth Co., 7 Cir., 125 F.2d 396, Where an appellate court has power to review the exercise of judicial discret......
-
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
...Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005)); see also Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted, 203 F. 493, 494 (7th Cir.1913) ("But discretion (which must be legal discretion, not merely the individual view or will of the particular chancello......
-
Peterson v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...not extend to a refusal to apply well-settled principles of law to a conceded or indisputable state of facts. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmstead, 7 Cir., 203 F. 493, 494. In deciding the motion for a rehearing the district court had jurisdiction to correct its previous orders. The st......