Blakey v. Kurtz

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Blakey v. Kurtz

78 F. 368, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 13, 1897

DocketNo. 7

StatusPublished

This text of 78 F. 368 (Blakey v. Kurtz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blakey v. Kurtz, 78 F. 368, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467 (circtwdpa 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin alleged infringement of letters patent No. 31.1,171, granted January 27,1885, to Mildred Blakey, for an improvement in thread protectors for wrought-iron pipes. Under a patent granted in 1890, the respondent or his company has been manufacturing thread protectors for five years and upward, has been in active competition with complainant, and both parties have had factories in this immediate locality. During that time the respondent has equipped a manufacturing establishment, and has acquired a very considerable trade. No allegation is made of respondent’s. inability to respond on final decree to damages recovered against him. The complainant meanwhile has brought no suit for alleged infringement. This fact should weigh heavily against him when he asks at this late day for a preliminary injunction (see Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. 361, Fed. Cas. No. 6,556; Curt. Pat. par. 417; Walk. Pat. par. 684; Keyes v. Refining Co., 31 Fed. 560); and, unaccounted for, such delay, in view of the facts shown in this case, is decisive against his application. The claim made of such financial inability as precluded his making the application at an earlier day has not been substantiated.

Without expressing any opinion on the question of infringement, we are of opinion that owing to the delay of the complainant, accompanied, as it has been, with knowledge of respondent’s alleged infringement, application for a preliminary injunction should now be denied.

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

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin alleged infringement of letters patent No. 31.1,171, granted January 27,1885, to Mildred Blakey, for an improvement in thread protectors for wrought-iron pipes. Under a patent granted in 1890, the respondent or his company has been manufacturing thread protectors for five years and upward, has been in active competition with complainant, and both parties have had factories in this immediate locality. During that time the respondent has equipped a manufacturing establishment, and has acquired a very considerable trade. No allegation is made of respondent’s. inability to respond on final decree to damages recovered against him. The complainant meanwhile has brought no suit for alleged infringement. This fact should weigh heavily against him when he asks at this late day for a preliminary injunction (see Hockholzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. 361, Fed. Cas. No. 6,556; Curt. Pat. par. 417; Walk. Pat. par. 684; Keyes v. Refining Co., 31 Fed. 560); and, unaccounted for, such delay, in view of the facts shown in this case, is decisive against his application. The claim made of such financial inability as precluded his making the application at an earlier day has not been substantiated.

Without expressing any opinion on the question of infringement, we are of opinion that owing to the delay of the complainant, accompanied, as it has been, with knowledge of respondent’s alleged infringement, application for a preliminary injunction should now be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F. 368, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blakey-v-kurtz-circtwdpa-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack