EDWARD BARR CO. V'.
'" N. H. AUfOMATIC SPRINKLER CO.
hot-air furnaces. That claim is as follows: "A furnace havingsecuref,l 'thereto a detachablel'adiator, which is providedwith'oneor more horizontal flues opening from dome fromtbe furnace, *'* * suhstantially as and for the purposes set fOl:th." The specifications. provided that the radiator should be seated in a sand-cup joint, and seto the furnace by means of:;t;. flange, slots, an<}lup;s, which secUirely locked it in position, it being madedetachable·,by bringing the lugs opposite the slots. The alleged infringing furnace consisted, also, of a de.tachable .radill.tor and dome, but. the radiatorwRBnot, secured to; the furnace by lligs and slots, or by any other equivalent means of it against displacement by gas explosion. The defendants claimed that, in view of the state of th,e art, and the language of the specifications, daimlof t11.e letters patent should be limited to the elements used fQr .securing the raq.iator to the fqfDB.ce. and denied the infringement. Ed1fJin,H, .Ri8ley and Ed1!Jard Wetmore, for complll.inants. .... (Walter D. Edmonds, of Q()unsel,) for defendants.
'BLAT<lIiFORD, Justice. .The words of claim t of the Goodenow & Owens .'}ifl.tt:lnf, "a. furnace having seoured thereto a detachable radiator,"· ee sub· -stantially ItS and for the purpose set forth," require, by reference to the deseriptive pa-rtof thespooifioation, that the radiator shall not only be .-detacna:ble',btitshall besooured by the flange, N, the slots, N', and the 'l'Ugs, 0;: which, as. the speciflcation says, securely'lock it in positi6nj it · being madedetaohablES by bringing the lugi:l opp0i:lite to the slots.' · 'state dfthe· art also requireathis interpretation'of the claim. .As· the defendants' furnace contains no i:luch means,· arid 'no equivalent means of ·-seburingthEi radiator in position, there is no infringement, and the bill . · .'" " must be dismissed, with costs.
NEW YORK & SPRINKLER Co.
«(Jircuit Oourt, 8; D. NfM York. August 18. 1887.)
1. FATEioiTS FOR INVENTIONS-RIGHT TO PuLOInU.RY IN"JUNcTION-I'RE:8UMPTION OF' VALI1>ITY. ' ,
To entitle a cQmplainant to a. preliminary injunction, restraining the infringeznent of letters patent, there must be a special presumption in favor of the validity of the patents, arising from an adjudication in a 'federal court, . ll.Cquisscence by the public, or a successful interference in the patent-ofllee.
:2. Sllim:-FIRE-ExTINGUISRER. 307,456, l,il'ovember 4, 1884, and No. 357,987, February 15. 1887. for automatic
,Apreliminary injunction, r.estrainingtbe infringement of letters patent No.
".fire-extinguisher. » denied. as notbing appeared in the motion papers sbowbig sucb a former adjudication. pUblic acquiescence, or successfulinterference in tbe patent-ofllce, between the parties or tbeir privies. '"
SAME-PRESUMPTION-PARTlES To-RESTRICTION OF-INTJllR1l'JllRENCJll.
A presumption of validity arising from a successful interference in the pat. ent-office only applies against the parties to the interference and their privies. It does not extend to litigants who do not make the infringing article under a grant from the interferer.
Philip R. Voorhees, for complainant. Wetmore Jenner, for defendant.
LACOMBE, J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from infringing two patents ownt;d, in whole or in part, by complainant. Both these patents cover improvements in apparatus for thettutomatic extinguishment of fires. The first patent, No. 307,456, was granted November 4,1884, to Frank Gray, lind it is contended that one claim only of such patent is infringed. The other patent, No. 357,987, was granted February 15, .1887, to William S. Gray, (jointly with Frank Gray,) and it is contended that it is infringed in its entirety. Before a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of a patent is must bea special presumption that the· patent is .valid. · That pr!lsumption does not arise from the. presentation of the unattended letters patent. It may, be.shown, howev!lr, by proof, that the patent · bas been suitably adjudicated in a federal court, and tbereheld valid, or that its validity hasbllen suitably acquiesced in by the public, or that the patent has successfully undergone an interference.in the patent-office. When either of these facts appears, the validity of the patent will be presumed. Walk. Pat. § 665, and cases cited. As to the first of these patents, (No. 307,456, to Frank Gray,) that namely for an independent pipe, there has been neither adjudication nor interference. The only proof of acquiescence is a general· allegation in the bill; no facts bearing on this point are disclosed. Nearly three years have elapsed since its issue, but to what extent specimens of the patented article were made and sold by the patentees, or under their license, or, indeed, whether anyone ever made or used such apparatus, does not appilar. The complainant, therefore, hl\S not made out such pri'TlUt farM case l!-s entitles him to a preliminary injunction under the first patent. As 'to the second patent, there has been no adjudication, and the timesince it was issued is so short that, without exceptional circumstances, (which are not shown,) it cannot be claimed that there has been general · acquiescence. The complaint relies on a successful interference in thepatent-office, to which one Bishop was a' party. That such a successful interference is sufficient ground for presuming the validity of a patent is abundantly settled by authority, with one restriction; namely, that such presumption arises only against the parties to the interference, and their privies. In Greenwood v. Bracher, 1 Fed. Rep. 856; Smith v. Halk, Jjard, 16 Fed. Rep. 414; and Pentlarge v. Beeston, 14 Blatchf. 354,-the · q,efimdants had been parties to the interference. In Holliday Y. Pickhardt, ·12 Fed. Rep. 147, the defendants were the representatives of Caro, who was a party to the interference, and whose product was before the patent-