Court Opinion

ID: 8628590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:34:00.262278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:41.560533
License: Public Domain

BOND, Circuit Judge.
This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complainant has, heretofore, in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district •of Ohio, had all the material facts alleged in his bill, adjudicated in his favor, in a suit against other defendants, [Birdsall v. McDonald, Case No. 1,434,] and it is admitted that the defendants in this suit are using the same machine that, in that case, was determined to be a violation of the complainant’s patent. The defendants allege, however, that, if an opportunity be given, they can produce additional witnesses to establish the contrary of some of the facts found by the court in the Ohio suit, which would overthrow complainant’s patent altogether, by showing its want of novelty. The complainant, however, is certainly now entitled to the benefit of the adjudication already had; and, though the defendants in this suit was not a party to the record in the various suits brought in other of the courts, where the validity of this patent was in controversy, yet, they contributed to the defence of such suits, and it would not be equitable, now to allow them to proceed to manufacture this patented article, because, they say, in their answer, they can produce more witnesses to testify to a particular fact already determined, which was in controversy, and touching which, they have already examined witnesses. Whatever may be the effect of this additional testimony, upon the case, at the1 final hearing, the complainant ought to have the benefit of his adjudicated rights, now. The injunction will be ordered, as prayed.