Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-09-08

the State pass law that Will nave tnat cuec',
because the patent is a contract, and The Leg
slature is prohibited from passlog law viola.
tive Of contract. The Constitution OF Tho
u. S. secures to the patentee the exclusive use
of the patent for limited time, and the plain
tiff called upon the Court of the u. 5. to carry
out that guarantee Of the Constitution. Many
cases had been cited upon The question OF 10.
JUNCTION, tu! the settled law had not been:
prlna iucc cviderce 10 its favor. 1t had been
held TO be but the expression Of the opinion OF
az intelligent expert. Authorities were cited
to show that where the validity of the patoDt
is admitted, as in this case, aud the question OF
Infringement free from doubt, tho preliminary
Injunction would be granted, regardless OF the
iriury TO the defendant. The courts had de-
ciuetl that sale of the paLcut or any right No.
| der il vas equivalent 10 q US: and came under
lie rule Of user, and ii the Infringement was
clear the II jnnctioo should remain.
Judge Hill argued the question of intericr'
eacc from a scientific standpoint, frequently
qaoting authorities TO enforce the positions he
assumed, aud claimed that the two comboa.
tions wcrc analogous 10 their principles and
produced the same results. Upon the subject
Of irreparatIe Injury, he said if the preliminary
injunction was not graoted, and the plaintiff
was rcmandea TO actions at law for damages for
inrrogcmcDts, it would ucccssitate the iustitu.
ton OF two thousand and seventy suits against
the Equor dealers in the State. who would
under the operations OF this Ubiquitous law
noens volens, bc compelled to Infringe the
plaintiffs patent. The costs Of these suits
would be S275 900. at an average Of 500 each.
This would be an Injury to the plaintiff, and,
besides, u0der such circumstances no Jury
would give the plaintiff damages,
Judge Hughes said be desired the briefs of
counsel for the foa! bearing, as be did not ex-
pcct to 81. alone 10 the case. lie would decide
the questions arising upon the preliminary TO-
Junction DOW. He said:
Most Of tho que:tions which have been argued
at bar will be more properly considered at tn 9
| final hearing of this C auso, and must be adjourn
| ed until that time
| The motion is heard after three weeks notice
on bill answer and sfidsvits. The Court will
| consider now only such questions as necsssssr.
~ bear upon the motion for q preliminary in.
Junction. 1t must endesvor as far a, practical
bic to avoid committing or concluding itself Oh
every question which will arise at the final hear
| ing, upon evidence regularly taken. Tho ques.
| ton now to be determined u.s. whether the com
| plsinant is entitled to preliminary injunction.
As his right to the exclusive use of the Fountsin
patent in Virginia may be assumed So undenia-
| Ulo lOT tu0 SuuFL IL,
whether the Mottet RICHTER is an infringement
oft.
Even that question is not now to be finally
decided, and tho Court ought not and is not
bound to commit Itself finally upon it.
Tho fact OF Infringement is denied. and the
point to be now determined is, whether the fact
is pri ns fscio made TO appear with such certain.
~ as to justify the Court in granting premi-
| nary injunction against the use Of the instru-
ment psnden.c lite. The p.ims facie aspect OF
the Case has been reversed since tho 3.h OF Au.
gust, when the temporary restraining order was
granted. Ttel ths action Ct tho Patent Bureau
| hsd bean such as to mako, in III opinion Of the
| CGurs, prims tacie case for tae complainant.
Now the case, in tbs. particular. is changed
The action Of the Patan. Bureau is such Is 10
mskc prms faclo casa for tho defendant for
| the Commissioner o. Patents, whose action IS
final in that bureau, has reversed tho Judgment
Of his i !erior officers, and virtually pronounced
.hst tbs MoEet register is not an irfringo ant Of
the Fountain register, By. issuing patent to
Mofet. s. Deane for their invention as new.
1t is true that the issuing Of patents is not con-
| elusive upon the Courts. Patents are subject to
review by lhs Courts. Suits in very large
proportion Of patont cases are but means Of ap.
peal to lha Courts from tho action Of The Patent
Otlico. Yet while this is so, that action must
always carry groat weight with tho Counts: 1t
! ls always very strongly persuasive with those
tribunals Patcat5 arc III, results generally Of
contest: bet arc )mplished experts, and If
ter such contests Ct the lnstured judgment of of.
| fi:ers selected and appointed by the President
| for their extraordinary competency and skill. l
think it is hardly going too far 70 say, fol owing
Mr.. Justice Grier in N. e. Gar Co. vs. Dunbar,
that tho action Of the Patent office is sufficient to
| make such prima fhce case as TO Justify the
acLion Of a court on smosl any motion for a
| preliminary Injunction
IF, indeed in any case the general unanimous tes
tmony of experts united in condemning the action
| of the Patent Oinc. such q MIGHT we'll
hesitate to treat that action constituting priN,0
! Jscsc case for or against preliminary injunction.
But when, as in tho present case, the weight OF OK
pert testimony is nearly evenly balanced court may
safely presume that the action Of the Patent Office
taken after sharp contest between pa.ont lawyers
| and experts, is prima faoic correct.
| On this ground alone think I would DO iustiGed
in refusing preliminary injunction in tho present
case. But as court is not at liberty to surrender
itself to blind aud unqucstionng reliance upon tho
decision of another tribunal, when the duty and
spousibility upon itself to act upon its own con-
victions will state briefly the view of the facts of
the case by which led to concur, for the present,
| in the jud gment of the Commissioner of Patents
The patent of Fountain is not for the invention of
the mechanical devices used in making up his instru-
ment, of any of them. These nll old and in
familiar use By tho public. Fountains patent is
only for particular combination and arrangement Of
these old and vol known Devices in manner to
serve particular purpose. MoiIet & Deanes patent
is Of tho character. They employ old and we'll
known devices also; and their patent is for partcu
lar arrangement and combination of these devices in
o manner to serve particular purpose other than
that of tho Fountain register. And it is fact OBJ
vious from inspection Of tho two instruments that
the devices employed in instrument not den-
teal with those employed in the other; and that the
arrangement and combination Of the respective de-
vices made use Of in each arc different
Fountain claims tho invention Of the worm mcsh-
ing into cog wheel to mpart motion to tho indexes
MOiTet Deane use no worm. The striking apparatus
Of tho two instruments arc different Fountain has
single spring attached to the hammer without any
means of Withdrawing tho hammer instantly from
the bell. Mofctt i Dcane have two springs-ono
to throw the hammer against the bell and another to
instantly withdraw it.
Moffet i Deane use pinion to drive the register
ing apparatus; Fountain pinion. Fountains
instrument is portable and contrived especially for
the purpose Of registering fares taken On public
veyances while MofFet & Deanes is intended to be
stationary, and contrived for tho purpose Of tally
ing drinks taken in a bar room.
Fountain in his specifications claims that "his in
venton is Improvement in fare registers" "adapt