Court Opinion

ID: 8636942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:46:48.656056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:57.701584
License: Public Domain

INGERSOLL, District Judge.
The right of the plaintiff to the invention patented has never been established at law. An action is pending before this court, on the law side thereof, in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendants, in which the validity of the patent is to be contested and tried. It was expected that that action at law would have been tried at the present term of the court, but it has gone over to the next term, when it will be tried. At the early part of the term, the defendants were ready to try it; but, during the term, in consequence of a fire which took place, by which some of the evidence relied on by the defendants, to establish their defence, was lost and destroyed, it became necessary to have the trial postponed. The rights of the plaintiff under the patent have not been acquiesced in by the public. Others besides the defendants contest those rights and insist that the plaintiff has no rights under the patent. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff must make out a case clear of all doubt, to authorize the court to grant the injunction prayed for. Such a case has not been made out. It seems that, under the first patent, and also under the first reissued one, the plaintiff failed to establish his right, when the question was tried at law. Without intimating what my opinion would be, on the proofs as exhibited, if the ease were now on the final hearing, I must deny the present motion. But, while I deny it, I will make an order requiring the defendants to be ready to try the action at law pending against them in this court, at the next term thereof, whenever the same shall be called, and providing that, if they are not so ready, an injunction shall then issue against them, as prayed for.