159 F.1d 428 - Hildreth v. Norton — 159 F. 428

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1928

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Patents — Suit for Infringement — Preliminary Injunction.

¶2Where a patent is a very recent one, and its validity has not been adjudicated, and both validity and infringement are denied, a preliminary injunction against its infringement should not be granted, but the issues should be left for determination at final hearing.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, §§ 474, 475.

¶4Grounds for denial of preliminary injunction in infringement suit, see note to Johnson v. Foos Mfg. Co., 72 C. C. A. 123.]

¶5 *429Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

¶6For opinion below, see 154 Fed. 82.

¶7H. A. Touilmin (J. H. Dyer and Henry A. Williams, of counsel), for appellant.

¶8F. P. Fish. William A. MacLeod, J. Lewis Stackpole, and William A. Copeland, for appellee.

¶9Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

¶10LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

¶11We think that a case for preliminary injunction was not made out. The patent was a very recent one — issued only a few weeks before the motion was made. It had never been adjudicated. The decision in interference was not the equivalent of adjudication as to patentability and infringement; and sufficient time had not elapsed to present proof of general acquiescence. Validity and infringement are vigorously disputed, and we think both questions should he left for determination at final hearing. Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co., 153 Fed. 907, 82 C. C. A. 653; Newhall v. McCabe, 125 Fed. 919, 60 C. C. A. 629.