Case Name: PECK, STOW & WILCOX CO. v. FRAY et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1898-11-15
Citations: 92 F. 1021
Docket Number: 
Parties: PECK, STOW & WILCOX CO. v. FRAY et al.
Judges: Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 92
Pages: 1021–1022

Head Matter:
PECK, STOW & WILCOX CO. v. FRAY et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit.
November 15, 1898.)
Patknts — Injunction.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
This causo comes here upon appeal from a preliminary order of injunction made by the circuit court, district o-C Connecticut. The patent Is No. 293,957 (February 19, 1884, to Robert E. Ellrich), for an improved pawl and ratchet, the claims declared upon being Nos. 2 and 3.
A. M. Wooster, for appellants.
W. E. Simonds, for appellee.
Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It would seem that the patent, if sustainable at all, must
be construed as an extremely narrow one. Manifestly, defendant's device is not a Chinese copy of complainant's, and appellant has introduced sufficient evidence of the prior art, as disclosed in patents, to overcome the presumption arising from the issuance of the patent, — at least, if it he construed so broadly •as to cover defendant's device, which can he done only by a liberal application of the doctrine of equivalents. The patent lias never been adjudicated, and its construction upon ex parte papers is too doubtful to warrant the issue of a preliminary injunction. The order for preliminary injunction (88 Fed. 784; is reversed, with costs of this appeal.