Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Fray

92 F. 1021, 34 C.C.A. 688, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1883

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It would seem that the patent, if sustainable at all, must

be construed as an extremely narrow one. Manifestly, defendant’s device is not a Chinese copy of complainant’s, and appellant has introduced sufficient evidence of the prior art, as disclosed in patents, to overcome the presumption arising from the issuance of the patent, — at least, if it he construed so broadly •as to cover defendant’s device, which can he done only by a liberal application ■of the doctrine of equivalents. The patent lias never been adjudicated, and its construction upon ex parte papers is too doubtful to warrant the issue of a preliminary injunction. The order for preliminary injunction (88 Fed. 784; is reversed, with costs of this appeal.