The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-17

pioneer invention. waS ANTICIPATED bv
that said Bowers DasersI' Il valid ser an ,sy
purpose, covers only improvements Ia ma
chinery previously well known anG IN gem
srai Use. The defendants alao show that
sas acton and s9lt IN equity against the
san Francisco Bridge COMPANY. sn the
United States circuit court for the North
ern district OF California. is beIng defena-
ed IN good faith. and no final adjudication
has been obtained therein. that the action
a. Law referred 10 came on for tr1aI be-
Tore the court and jury. and ths trial
and Ia the equity case. Judge NeKeEna
refused 10 grant an intsrIoc4tory Lntunc-
ton upon the ground that the San Fran
coEplainaDts have an adequate remedy IN
81 action for damagsz. Zee Bowers Va
san Frane.sco Bridge Company. - Fed.
Counsel Tor the respective parties have
been energetic and painsfaking IN max
Ing a full presentation OF questions as
10 the merits OF the Bowers patent; and
on the part Of the defendants q Is insist
Cd that the ssh Francisco Bridge Com
psny u Necessary party % this cause.
Tnls last point viii be first disposed OF.
Proper Party TO the Suit.
81 hold that the New York Dredging
Company, being the principal contractor.
and responsible for making the improve
menis described. In which the Atlas il
employed. a9d having failed 10 enter q
disd>fImeE<A . proper party to the
snityazGD2haf said company mas no right
TO cRain because the defendants Lock
w2fnd others have been Joined as co.
6eYee &aats. nor should said company be
hea4 Ne say that its snb-contractor. the
Saf4 Francisco Bridge Company. should
be t7ade A defendant In the cause
n II deem Ii unnecessary at this stage
4r~She case 10 make careful and minute
Examination Of the details Of the several
this controversy. and to make the com
Parsons with the numerous specifications
and drawings introduced upon the hear
Ing, for the purpose OF showing the prior
state of the art which would be- necessary
TO an Intelligent decision Of the questions
affecting the main controversy which
court Is Justified Ia reserving It's opinion
upon questions going 10 the merits when
ever there appears TO be recognized
principse. OF iaw which must govern the
decision OF the particular questions Bec-
essary to be considered in ruling upon the
application for an interiocutory order.
From the consideration which have CIV
en- this case. find that the following
principles must be- applied In making my
decision:
Principles 20 He Applied.
Fits a suit founded upon a patent
the complainant Is not emf s. 70 pro-
ylslonai injunction pendente lite. unless
the patent has been previously establish
ga ~ the final Judgment OF a court OF
competent jurisdiction. after fun hearing
Hnon the merits. or unless II be shown
by clear and satisfactory evidence that
the patent Is valid, and that the defendant
iatends 10 and viii II not restrained IN
fringe. The same. and that such infrinEe-
m@nf during the continuation OK the litlga-
ton VIII work irFeparab!a injury 10 the
complainant.
by consent. pursuant 20 compromise, be-
tween the parties In pa tent cases, does not
establish the validity OF patents involved.
~fhird---A Judgment or desres upholtlng
the validity % patent cannot be resard-
Cd as flnsl, for the purpose OF establish
ing the validity Of a patent. II the cause
been rendered. has heen subsequently re-
moved into an appellate court for review.
and remains Undetermined and pending in
"Fcurth-In suits upon patent rights. so
iong as there is a substantial controversy
as TO the equities Of the parties maintain
ed In good faith the court will not dispose
or those equities on motion for IN tn
teriocutory Injunction, and such relief VIII
Dc refused where ne sran ,, Q, ~. .hs sp-
fendants' rights and its refusal viii nor
epdanger the plaintiffs rights TO the same
extent High on Injunetions. sec. go
sarhe application OF these principles
must deprive the complalnnnfs At THIS
time OF all right TO rely upon prior adjudi-
cations. They come into this court VIZ
Bowers patent has never heen established
by final adjudication IN any iitigated
case, and that the question whether or
not the Identical dredging machine COM
planned OF ia this case a. an infringement
OF their rights under the patent does IN
fringe, II the subject CT controversy and
litigation in another court. SO long a.
that controversy continues. the rules OF
chancery practice preclude the granting
of Affirmative relief. until after full con-
alteration OF the evidence upon the maj
hearing. ard a decision In their favor up
on the merits. In the case Of Jensen ".
Norton. 81 Fed. Rep, ss--es4. he circuit
other rule In the following words. When
a plaintiff In a court Of equity brings
SUIT IN good faith 10 obtain preventive
relief against a threatened injury. and
makes a showing OF facts sufficient 10 con-
sfitute a cause Of action within the iuTis-
diefion OF the court. and shows that his
adversary Intends TO. and VIII, ere hear
ing can bs had commit acts which may
work frreparahla injury 20 him, IL becomes
the duty or the court 10 exercise It's pow
ers at once by issuing an injunction. 80
a. 90 maintain the status quo until the
cause can be properly heard and dcc3det.
Tast was a ease Ia which the patent sued
broad construction by the hnai decision
OF the court Of last resort the defendants
admitted doing the acts which were COM
platne3 Of a. Infringing. and resisted the
application for an intsrlocutery injunction
on the ground that the machinery which
they had constructed for doing exactly
TIE same kind Of work by Substantially
the same process as the mechanism de-
acrshed IN the plaintiffs patent wa& new
ertheieSa so dIG N the detstls ot Us
construction and operation az 90 avoid Ia
fringement. and they relied entirely upon
a comparison OF the different devices 80
maxi their defense good. Tire rue applied
IN fhat case while of general application.
hss ita tsfnttatfans 1t s. not uecessa ri{y
Inconsistent with he principles above set
forth. The chancellor Is called uPon 20
exercise a sound discretion. and upon con-
~fderatsoH OF al tae recognises rules gov
ernsnG equity fracficv. ard ne facts tn
each particular case. he must Apply tae
rule which VII come TIE nssrest te weib-
lag out complete equity between fhe par
tles New aa I view the situation OF thu
parties TIRE defendants and pcQnae 20 ne
benefited By tho harhor improvements
which they have undertaken - make. viii
proha hly sustain heavy losses and ee SUB
tecied 80 tnconvenieilse hy es4VF !'fsNeots
"a from using tna Atlas. and y e should
ha finally satudged khat thls vessel is not
an infringement % tHe valid claims ~
the WaWefs pzsant they wttt have SuGer~
ga SarFtva ttau % legal ftzNts Tor hich
they W!ll be " 1hout adequate refuetV. Ga
the other hand. q the Pls1ntits MANY
prevail ne exact amount nEetF9stsN go
compensate them fer the infringement
can bs computed and gceovered ia 81 ac-
flssF Tor DAMAGES. The showing az o. tAe
soMeney % tas eessuSanfs goes oaly 80
snis sNfeat thas the NV Gork nred ring
Company does oog SUn praRtrTy witasn
this Jurisdiction. from tAis I MAY -AfiF
ts7fgr that taia company IS responsive.
ard any hAhility fer DAMAGES Whlch e.
uasv incur. can be. vita huf nttls extra
tfhHhi~ enforced by = ccUrg having fsT~
lsiirtlua where - prapeTtY mas he found
1T - my c0nciusscn tbkt there must
- a decree denyiug The Pres est anPlica-
an erst wtth leave 20 renew tae apnii-
cation before the aBsi hearing. upoa a
further showing. u tie eomps&laanss sasa
eaecg 70 de 80
THE DIVORCE MAS GRANTED.