American Bell Tel. Co. v. Western Tel. Const. Co.

58 F. 410, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
DecidedOctober 18, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 F. 410 (American Bell Tel. Co. v. Western Tel. Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Bell Tel. Co. v. Western Tel. Const. Co., 58 F. 410, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883 (circtndil 1893).

Opinion

JENKINS, Circuit Judge.

The validity and infringement of the complainant’s patent are not disputed. The life of that patent expires on January 30, 1894. It is claimed that the defendants ought not now to be enjoined, but should be permitted to pursue their infringement upon giving bond to pay royalties to the complainant. Tiie defendants, at the commencement of their enterprise, knew that this patent had been sustained by the supreme court of the United States. They were well informed of the complainant’s rights under that patent. With that knowledge, they have pursued their infringement, with a view to entering into competition with the complainant in the use of this patented improvement. It is true that they have a right to enter into competition with the complainant and to use the invention of Mr. Bell covered by patents which have expired. To that extent, they are justified. But they have no right, in the prosecution of such competition, to use the inventions covered by his patent No. 186,787 until the expiration of that patent. They must await that time before ihey may use the invention thereby covered. If it be true that the defendants have invested large amounts of money in the prosecution of their enterprise, which wifl be prejudiced or injured by an injunc[411]*411tion here, it need only be said tbat they went into the enterprise with their eyes open, and with deliberate design to infringe another’s rights. In such case, they have no right to favorable consideration by a court of equity.

An injunction will issue, as prayed for.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National Cash-Register Co. v. Navy Cash-Register Co.
99 F. 565 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1900)
In re Chicago Sugar-Refining Co.
87 F. 750 (Seventh Circuit, 1898)
Societe Anonyme du Filtre Chamberland Systeme Pasteur v. Allen
84 F. 812 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 F. 410, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-bell-tel-co-v-western-tel-const-co-circtndil-1893.