Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-09-07
The Liquor Punch Case.
FOURTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.


The hcalog of the motion for a dissolution
of the preliminary Injunction against the manu-
fscurc and use Of the Moffctt register was re-.
suned G the United States Crcui: Court this
morning before Judge II. W. Hughes.
Upon the opening Of the Court, Maj. Glims'
ley for defendants, Continued the reading Of
the testimony Of experts, whose eVldenc, tend
ed to prove that the Moffett register did 'n.
fringe upon the Fountain patent as claimed by
the plaintiff.
MIR. Ellsworth, for plalntitf, submitted sup.
Elementary afhdavts of the experts, whose tcs.
timouy was read yesterday. These Dew aft ida.
Wits were made necessary by the ISSUANCE OF tue
patent to Mofett. The experts testified that
| after az examination oil the new Motfett patent
they were Of the same opinion as expressed 10
the former ahidavits, viz: That the Moffett
patent was an Infringement.
Attorney General Field and Judge Hill dis.
cussed the admissability Of the afidavits pio
add con, and Judge Hughes ruled that supple.
mentsry atfdavts were unnecessary.
They were afterwards filed by consent.
The models Of the Fouulaio aud Nlolfett rex.
listers having been filed as exhibits and exam.
| ined, and all the testimony submitted,
Mr. l. lsWorlh, Of Washington, opened the
argument Tor the plaintiff. in favor Of conliu-
| uipg the preliminary Injunction, and said he
would con6oe himself to the question OF infringe
ncut and such questions as coIateralIy ti)Wed
| from it, lie took up the specifications Of the
Fountain patent and argued them scriatum,
c!aining that the Motfett register vas formed
upon like principles. lie argued that a new
con binatlon OF old devices to produce new
! beneficial result was pateutablc, and any one
usiog similar combination would be 40 in-
| tringment. Authorities were cited upon this
point, and he argued that nearly all modern
inventions consisted OF new combinations Of old
devices. The claim OF defendants, that the
purpose of the Aoffett register is for collecting
the rcGaGue of the State OF Virginia, and, be.
cause OF this new purpose the Moffett machine
was patcnabe, was uotenabe. The speaker
ridiculed the idea Of the patentabity Of an old
invention simply because Of its application to a
new purpose. \ purpose was not pateotab!e.
various authorities having settled this poict.
the :! eiendants admitted the validity of the
FJunlain patebt, and hence, the only question
that could possibly arise 10 this case is that of
infringement. The speaker reviewed the mode
of proceedings 10 intriogements under the Eog-
Iish system, and said the rule there established
has been followed here, viz Where the valid
~ Of the patent is not essaled and the infringe.
ment reasonably clear the Court will interposc
for the protection Of the patentce By irj unciou.
Major GrimsIcy, Of Culpeper, replied to the
arguments advanced, aod saii be would NO.
dertake to show that it would be against good
conscience and equity for the injunction pen
dente lite to stard and the interests Of the
Commonwealth and the citizens be permitted
to suffer. The plaintiff must read his title
clear before he will be entitled 10 this extraor-
binary remedy Before going into the subject
Of interference he would notice the objections
to the bill. There we're two objections to the
plaintiffs bill-1st. The bill must be accom-
panied by the affidavit OF the patentec that he
is the first. true aud original inventor. -.
Where the patent is lrecent origin and its valid
ity has never been asccrtained by judgment
at law there must be an allegation 10 the bill
that the patent has been 10 uso and been 40
uuicsccd TO- Ii this case thare was no allcga-
ton Of user except the affidavit which had been
Ged this morning In ascortaiuiug tho equity
OF the complainant il was necessary to Inquire
into the state Of the art and this showed that
the question Of the faro register" had been
closed by various improvements which for fifty
years had been made. The plaintiff in obtain
ing bis pateot for fare register had been,
after repeated Injections, brought down to an
exac: combinalion for particular purpose, to
w.t. fare register" and for no other pur-
posc and the adaptation Of the Fountain regis
ter, TO be carried 10 the hand was the partic.
uar element fer which he was awarded the
patent. Form was 40 element essential to an
invention, and 10 this the Mofett register was
different from the other The gearing was
different 10 the two patents, and the plain
tiff could not claim anything outside Of
the mechanical arrangements contained in his
specification. Ia the abstract the purpose for
which thing is to b. used is not pstentabe,
but where there was new element and new
purpose. new thought or idea, it justified the
Patent Office in granting the patent. Defend
ants deny the validity and novelty Of the Foun
tain patent, and claim that there is 90 povelty
in it. The patent for "Farc Register" was
granted in 1854 with all the essential elements
of the Fountain patent. 1t may be that the
Aloffett Register possessed no novelty, but it
must likewise be true OF the Fountain patent.
The mechanical equivalents 10 the Fountain
patent had been anticipated by these old pat
ents which have long since expired. There
was more similarity between these patents than
between them aud the Moffett patent, and after
all it nigh! be possible that none of the parties
were entitled to a patent, and all this litigation
might be uotmed and out of place. The par.
ties stood 10 equal right before the court; both
had patents but the defendants had been sub
jected to contest with Fountain, and that had
been decided at the Patent Office. Defendants
pTima tacie case was the strongest. At all events
this question of right was involved 10 doubt.
and the rule is that the plaintiff to obtain this
extraordinary remedy must read his tile clear.
There must be doubt 10 this case, and the TO-
junction must be dissolved, because court Of
equity ought not intcrposo its strong arm VI.
less the case is SO clear that "be who runs may
read" The testimony Of exparts did not clear
the doubt az they had given their opinions 90
both sides. 1t is common principle of equity
that where person was allowed TO incur cx