Case Name: PACIFIC PHONOGRAPH CO. v. SEARCHLIGHT HORN CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-08-09
Citations: 225 F. 500
Docket Number: No. 2518
Parties: PACIFIC PHONOGRAPH CO. v. SEARCHLIGHT HORN CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 225
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
PACIFIC PHONOGRAPH CO. v. SEARCHLIGHT HORN CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 9, 1915.)
No. 2518.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Win. C. Van Fleet, Judge.
Suit in equity by the Searchlight Horn Company against the Pacific Phonograph Company for infringement of letters patent, No. 771,441, for a horn for phonographs or similar machines, granted to Peter C. Nielsen October 4, 1904, in which defendant petitioned to enjoin further prosecution of the suit. Petition denied, and defendant appeals:
Affirmed.
See, also, 214 Fed. 257.
A. A. Acker and D. Hadsell, both of San Francisco, Gal., and J. Edgar Bull, of New York City, for appellant.
John H. Miller, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GILBERT and BOSS, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District Judge.

Opinion:
WOLVERTON, District Judge.
This case is akin to that of Sherman, Clay & Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co., 225 Fed. 497, —- C. C. A. -, just decided. The appellant purchased from Tilomas A. Edison, Incorporated. The latter company has also been sued by appellee in New Jersey. Neither company is a manufacturer of the infringing devices. The appellant petitioned for an injunction, the same as the defendant in the Sherman, Clay & Co. Case, mafc lug like allegations as to the seller being annoyed, harassed, etc., and the district court denied the injunction. The causes being of the same nature, the decision in the Sherman, Clay & Co. Case is decisive of this.
Affirmed.