The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-09-10

,rrisl Ol Tue
ALEXANDRIA, September s, 1877.
Thi, afternoon. after the close OF the ar.
.urncnt 0i counsel in the Motfctt case Judge
Hughes rendered the decision oi the court,
4 gnon the motion OF the complainant for Il
preliminary Injunction, as follows:
Most Of tn" questions which have been
armed al bar will be more properly con-
,,Grrcd a, tie final hearin" OF This cause,
and must be adjourned until that time.
The motion is heard after three weeks
4 notice on bill. answer. and aiiidavitS. The
court will consider now only such Qucs-
lions \ necessarily bear upon the motion
fora preliminary Injunction. 1t must ell
d,ayor a> far - practicable to avoid COM
hitting or concluding Itself on every queS-
lion which viii arise at the final hearing
upon evidence regularly taken. The qucs-
,iou now to nc determined i, whether the
complainant, is entitled to Il preliminary in
junction rs lis right to the exclusive use
cf the Fountain patent in Virginia may be
assumed - undcniable, the principal in
curry for til" Court is whether the Moflett
register is IN infringement OF it.
Even that question is not now TO be
/ finally decided. and the Court ought not
and is no; bound to commit itself finally
: upon il.
l.. NE NATTER OF INFRINGEMENT.
The fac. Of infringement is Denied and
the uoint - he now determined is whether
the fact is prime .fucie made TO appear with
such certainty As to justify the Court in
L Granting 4 preliminary injunction against
Il The Use Of the instrument peNdente tttc. The
L ,rlnu tdCic aspect OF the case has been re-
, yrr-cd since the Sth Of August, when the
+ temporary restraining order was granted.
! Then the ac,on OF the Patent Bureau had
bc,n such as to make, in the opinion of the
',ourt Il j.rifnu tuCic case for the complain
+ srf. Now The case in that particular Is
changed. The action OF the Patent Bureau
! ! -uch :,> 10 make Il prima fdCic case for
The defendant: for the Commissioner OF
q Patents. whose action is final in that Bu-
| r";,II. has reversed the Judgment OF his in
/, fclipr officers. and virtually pronounced
l that the Nrictt register is not al infringe
mcHt Of III" Fountain register, by issuing 4
la;-nt 10 Nollclt Il Dcanc for their inven-
y ;rn ls new.
X II is true that the issuing OF patents is not
III aucluSyc upon the courts. Patents are
y ,uajcct to review 10y the courts. Suits in i
q yrry large proportion Of patent eases are but
means OF appeals 10 the courts from the
ariion OF the Patent Office. Yet while this
j -. the action must always carry great
weight witt the courts. II Is always very
s.)rongly persuasive with those tribunals.
d Patents are The results generally OF contests
hciwccn accomplished experts, and after
\ ,lirh contests OF the matured Judgment
o. officers selected and appointed by
the President for their extraordinary
y competency and skill. l think it is
% hardv going too far to say, following
II Mr.. Justice Grier in y. f. Car Company
4 y,. Dunbar, that the action OF the Pat
q tnt Office is sufficient to make such prinla
& f4Cs case as 20 Justify the action OF u court
u ~ almost any motion for preliminary in
81 Junction.
Il H. indeed, in any case the general or
4 unanimous testimony OF experts united in
\ Rcondcnuing the action OF the Patent Oilice,
Il II such case Il court might well hesitate to
& 'rctt that action as constituting 4 prim0
Y '1cia case for or against a preliminary i'll
q junction. But when, Is in the present
! case, the weight OF expert testimony Is
6 nearly evenly balanced, court may safely
" .rr>umc that the action Of the Patent Once,
i sk"n after a sharp contest between patent
Awycr> and experts. is prin1a Jacte correct.
THE FOUNTAIN PATENT.
Il ON this ground alone | think would be
q Justified in refusing Il preliminary injunc-
s ;.on in the present case. But as court is
y "Jt al liberty TO surrender itself to blind
q M!d unqucstioning reliance upon the deci-
3 Son OF another tribunal, when the duty and
=! >ponslbility arc upon itself to act upon its
b own convictions, | will state briefly the
n '!"w OF the facts OF the ease by which 1 am
81 led 10 concur, for the present, in the iudg-
q urNt OF the Commissioner OF Patents.
b The patent OF Fountain is not for the in
q Ycnl!on Of the mechanical devices used in
.3 making up hls instrument, or OF any OF
q ja"ln. These are all old and in familiar
"a 'l'c by the public. Fountains patent is
q Only for = particular combination and az
& !angemcnt OF these old and well-known
d devices i'll manner 10 serve a particular
q purpose. Motiett d Deanc's patent is OF the
4 same character They employ old and we'll
3 known devices also; and their patent is for
particular arrangement and combination
j ol thesc devices IN Il manner to serve 4 par
\ tlcular purpose other than that OF the Foun-
tain register And it is a fact. Obvious
from an inspection OF thetwo instruments.
That the devices employed in one instrument
are not identical with those employed in the
o.hcr; and that the arrangement and conl-
hlhation OF the respective devices made use
o! IN each are different.
1; Folintain claims the invention OF the
"oFin-heshing into c0g-wheel to impart
hotion 10 the indexes. Moflett Il Deane use
no worm. The striking apparatus OF the
t"o Instruments arc different. Fountain
mas single spring attached to the hammer,
without any means OF Withdrawing the
hammer instantly from the bell. Moffett IL
heanc have two springs-.one to throw the