Case ID: f_57/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ACHESON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMERICAN BELL TEL. CO. et al. v. McKEESPORT TEL. CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
    August 21, 1893.)
    No. 20.
    Patents fob Inventions — -Pbf.liminaby Injunction — Effect of Decision of
    SUPBEME COUBT OF UNITED STATES.
    A decision oí the supreme court of the United States, sustaining a patent, must be regarded as conclusive, upon a motion for preliminary injunction.
    In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent. On motion for preliminary injunction.
    Oran Led.
    J. J. Storrow and J. I. Kay, for complainants.
    W. Bakewell and John McDonald, for defendants.
   ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

Alexander Oraham Bell’s second patent, No. 386,787, dated January 30, 1877, here sued on, was sustained by the supreme court of the United States in The Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, as to the 3d, 5th, 6th, 7th. and 8th claims. Xow that decision must he regarded as conclusive, upon the present motion for a preliminary injunction. Purifier Co. v. Christian, 3 Ban. & A. 42, 51; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 795. Infringement by the defendants of said claims is, I think, clearly shown. Indeed, in the affidavits submitted on the part of the defendants, it is not alleged that the telephones used by them differ materially, as respects the features here complained of, from the telephones which were adjudged by the supreme court to infringe the patent. A preliminary injunction, therefore, must he granted against the McKeesport Telephone Company and the other,, defendants who are citizens of Pennsylvania.