Overhead Railway & Switch Co. v. Hiller

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

Overhead Railway & Switch Co. v. Hiller

98 F. 620, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3426

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided December 1, 1899·No. No. 15·Published

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction has not been adequately supported. It is necessary only to read the opinion in the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Roden (C. C.) 98 Fed. 619, to perceive that its decision ought not to be regarded as conclusive. The question respecting the validity of the patent, as it is now presented, is at least a serious one, and the force of the evidehce of anticipation which has been presented is not substantially opposed by anything to be found in the moving papers. Neither has infringement been satisfactorily shown. The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction has not been adequately supported. It is necessary only to read the opinion in the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Roden (C. C.) 98 Fed. 619, to perceive that its decision ought not to be regarded as conclusive. The question respecting the validity of the patent, as it is now presented, is at least a serious one, and the force of the evidehce of anticipation which has been presented is not substantially opposed by anything to be found in the moving papers. Neither has infringement been satisfactorily shown. The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Overhead Railway & Switch Co. v. Hiller, 98 F. 620, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3426 (circtedpa 1899).

Pincite

98 F. 620 (Overhead Railway & Switch Co. v. Hiller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related