Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/278/509/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:00:05+00:00

Document:
In a suit to enjoin infringement of a patent and for an accounting and damages, begun within a short time before the patent is to expire, the jurisdiction of the district court to adjudicate the claim for monetary relief as a court of equity will not be divested by a denial of a preliminary injunction if the case be such that the court properly might either grant or refuse such injunction in the exercise of its discretion. P. 278 U. S. 512.
valid and infringed and referring the cause for determination of profits and damages. A preliminary injunction was denied by the district court, and the patent expired thereafter pending the suit. That court declined to transfer to the law docket. See 6 F.2d 91; 21 F.2d 124.
The question here to be determined arose in a suit in equity by respondent against petitioner, brought in the federal district court for the Western District of New York, for infringement of a patent. The bill alleged repeated and continuing infringement of the patent by petitioner, preparation and readiness to continue such infringement, and that, unless petitioner was restrained, respondent would suffer great and irreparable damage, etc.
It was further alleged that, in a prior suit for infringement, brought by respondent against the Bowman Dairy Company, the patent had been sustained as valid and infringed; that the defense to that suit was openly conducted by petitioner, who paid all expenses, as well as the judgment rendered by the final decree; that such decree therefore became res judicata as against petitioner. The prayer was for an interlocutory as well as a perpetual injunction, and for an account to be taken of profits realized by petitioner and damages sustained by respondent.
"In the circumstances, plaintiff had a right, at the time this action was instituted, to commence in equity and to assert that right to an injunction existed . . . I must therefore hold that the relief sought in the bill was grantable, and it was only denied by the court in the exercise of its discretion. . . ."
trial resulted in a decree for respondent holding the patent to be valid and infringed, 21 F.2d 124, and this decree was affirmed by the court below on appeal without opinion, 24 F.2d 1021.
The sole question for our consideration is whether, after refusing the preliminary injunction, the district court was justified in retaining jurisdiction of the case as a suit in equity. We allowed the writ and brought the case here because of an alleged conflict in respect of that matter among the decisions of the circuit courts of appeals.
patent was in force. The general allegations of the bill were sufficiently comprehensive to meet such a case. But, even without that, if the case was one for equitable relief when the suit was instituted, the mere fact that the ground for such relief expired by the expiration of the patent would not take away the jurisdiction, and preclude the court from proceeding to grant the incidental relief which belongs to cases of that sort. This has often been done in patent causes, and a large number of cases may be cited to that effect, and there is nothing in the decision in Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189, to the contrary. Cotton Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U. S. 89; Lake Shore, etc., Railway v. Car-Brake Co., 110 U. S. 229; Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Valve Co., 113 U. S. 157; Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104."
And see Beedle v. Bennet, 122 U. S. 71; Busch v. Jones, 184 U. S. 598, 184 U. S. 599-600.
The decisions of this Court upon the point are entirely harmonious. Root v. Railway Co., referred to in the foregoing quotation, presents no exception. There, suit was brought long after the expiration of the patent. No ground for equitable jurisdiction properly could be alleged, for plainly none existed, and the bill was merely for an accounting of profits and damages, the remedy at law for which was complete. Accordingly, a decree dismissing the bill was affirmed. We deem it unnecessary to review the decisions in the several circuits thought to be in conflict.
a retention of jurisdiction by the chancellor based upon that contingency, we do not rest upon that ground.
An interlocutory injunction at least ordinarily, is not a matter of strict right, but the application is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 1 High on Injunctions (4th ed.) §§ 11 and 937. And here, the trial court denied the application not because it would have been error to grant it, but in the exercise of its discretion, principally based upon a balancing of the relative conveniences and inconveniences which might result. This is made clear by the trial judge, who, interpreting his own action, expressly held that the relief sought was grantable, but was only denied by the court in the exercise of its discretion. That the case was one for the exercise of discretion is plain. Id., § 937; Southwestern Brush Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Louisiana Elec. L. Co., 45 F. 893, 895, 896; Whitcomb v. Girard Coal Co., 47 F. 315, 317, 318; Rousso v. Barber, 276 F. 552, 553. The order denying the injunction therefore was conclusive in an appellate court, and an order granting it would have been equally so. Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99, 95 U. S. 100.
274 U. S. 684, 274 U. S. 689.) The action of the trial court here in denying the motion to transfer was within its authority, and does not call for our interference. Jurisdiction of the court sitting in equity, having been rightfully invoked, was not lost either because the interlocutory injunction was denied in the exercise of judicial discretion or by the expiration of the patent pending final decree. This conclusion finds support in the principle that "a court of equity ought to do justice completely, and not by halves," and to this end, having properly acquired jurisdiction of the cause for any purpose, it will ordinarily retain jurisdiction for all purposes, including the determination of legal rights that otherwise would fall within the exclusive authority of a court of law. Greene v. Louis. & Interurban R. Co., 244 U. S. 499, 244 U. S. 520; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 237 U. S. 296; Camp v. Boyd, 229 U. S. 530, 229 U. S. 551-552.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 937
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.