Elliott v. Harris

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

Elliott v. Harris

92 F. 374, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2648

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

DecidedDecember 3, 1898

DocketNo. 5,810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 F. 374 (Elliott v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Harris, 92 F. 374, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2648 (circtndoh 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

RICKS, District Judge.

Counsel for the defendants very properly quote from Robinson (Pat. § 1173) the three things essential to maintaining a preliminary injunction in a patent case: (1) that the patent is valid; (2) that plaintiff is the owner of a legal or equitable interest therein; and (3) that the defendant is about to commit an act of infringement. The complainants sue upon three patents, neither one of which has ever been adjudicated. In order to entitle them to an injunction, they must therefore show that the public has long used said patents, and has acquiesced in the validity thereof, and has never undertaken by litigation to question the patentee’s exclusive rights thereto, or the validity of said patents. They allege certain acts of the defendants, which, in a proper case, might be held to be contributory infringement, but which are not shown to be such by the facts in this case. The case, as made out and submitted, is deficient, and fails to establish any one of the grounds named which would entitle the complainants to a preliminary injunction. Such an injunction is not issued, unless the rights of the complainant thereto are clearly established. They are certainly not so established in this case. The motion for preliminary injunction is therefore disallowed.

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

RICKS, District Judge.

Counsel for the defendants very properly quote from Robinson (Pat. § 1173) the three things essential to maintaining a preliminary injunction in a patent case: (1) that the patent is valid; (2) that plaintiff is the owner of a legal or equitable interest therein; and (3) that the defendant is about to commit an act of infringement. The complainants sue upon three patents, neither one of which has ever been adjudicated. In order to entitle them to an injunction, they must therefore show that the public has long used said patents, and has acquiesced in the validity thereof, and has never undertaken by litigation to question the patentee’s exclusive rights thereto, or the validity of said patents. They allege certain acts of the defendants, which, in a proper case, might be held to be contributory infringement, but which are not shown to be such by the facts in this case. The case, as made out and submitted, is deficient, and fails to establish any one of the grounds named which would entitle the complainants to a preliminary injunction. Such an injunction is not issued, unless the rights of the complainant thereto are clearly established. They are certainly not so established in this case. The motion for preliminary injunction is therefore disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. 374, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-harris-circtndoh-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack