The plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction has not been adequately supported. It is necessary only to read the opinion in the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Roden (C. C.) 98 Fed. 619, to perceive that its decision ought not to be regarded as conclusive. The question respecting the validity of the patent, as it is now presented, is at least a serious one, and the force of the evidehce of anticipation which has been presented is not substantially opposed by anything to be found in the moving papers. Neither has infringement been satisfactorily shown. The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
98 F. 620
OVERHEAD RAILWAY & SWITCH CO. v. HILLER.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
December 1, 1899.)
No. 15.
Patents — 'Validity—Elevated Railroads.
The Curtis & Cook patent, No. .285,116, for an improvement in portable elevated railroads, considered on a motion for preliminary injunction, and its validity held too doubtful on the showing to warrant the granting of an injunction.
This is á suit in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 285,116, granted to Ourtis & Cook, September 18, 1883, for an improvement in portable elevated railroads. On an application for a preliminary injunction.
James Eyon, for complainant.
Ernest Howard Hunter, for respondent.
Overhead Railway & Switch Co. v. Hiller
98 F. 620
Case Details
98 F. 620
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!