Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

112 F. 431

Seidenberg v. Davidson

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1901-12-07

<p>J. Patents—Suits for Infringement—Preliminary Injunction.</p> <p>Preliminary injunctions are not granted on patents of recent date, where there has been no adjudication sustaining the patent and its validity is contested, but where there is no prior patent or publication submitted, nor any statement as to the prior state of the art, the presumption arising from the granting of the patent is sufficient to warrant the issuing of an injunction when infringement appears.</p> <p>3. Same—Infringement—Chimney Cowl.</p> <p>The Seidenberg patent, No. 674,940, for a chimney cowl, Claim 1, held infringed on motion for preliminary injunction.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1907

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1J. Patents—Suits for Infringement—Preliminary Injunction.

¶2Preliminary injunctions are not granted on patents of recent date, where there has been no adjudication sustaining the patent and its validity is contested, but where there is no prior patent or publication submitted, nor any statement as to the prior state of the art, the presumption arising from the granting of the patent is sufficient to warrant the issuing of an injunction when infringement appears.

¶33. Same—Infringement—Chimney Cowl.

¶4The Seidenberg patent, No. 674,940, for a chimney cowl, Claim 1, held infringed on motion for preliminary injunction.

¶5*432In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent. On motion for preliminary injunction.-

¶6Hillquit & Hillquit, for the motion.

¶7Charles I/yón Russell, opposed.

¶8EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

¶9Counsel for defendant is misinformed as to’ the -practice. Preliminary injunctions are not granted on patents of recent date, where there has been no adjudication sustaining the patent, and its validity is contested. Where, however, as in this case, there is no prior patent or publication submitted, nor any statement as. to the prior state of the art, the presumption induced by the granting of the patent is sufficient to warrant the issuing of injunction. •

¶10Under a fair application of the doctrine of equivalents, the device of defendant seems to infringe the patent. It has all the improvements upon the older style of cowl, viz. an unobstructed passage for the smoke from the chimney to the opening between the wings, with no bridges located in such passageway to become incrusted with soot.

¶11Infringement of the first claim is found, and injunction pendente lite may issue.

/112/f1d/431 · .json · Public domain