Hildreth v. Norton

Second Circuit

Hildreth v. Norton

159 F. 428, 86 C.C.A. 408, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4089

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 11, 1908·No. No. 150·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

We 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.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

We 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.

Hildreth v. Norton, 159 F. 428, 86 C.C.A. 408, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4089 (2d Cir. 1908).

Pincite

159 F. 428 (Hildreth v. Norton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related