Court Opinion

ID: 8842749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:47:29.657598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:15.295537
License: Public Domain

Reed, ,T.
After a careful examination of the authorities cited by complainant’s counsel, 1 am still of the opinion that the bill cannot bo maintained against Germain by service of a subpoena upon his agent in *296this state. To hold that Germain became an inhabitant of this state, because he has a regular agent here for the sale of his goods, would be an extension of the meaning of the act of 1888 far beyond any reported case that I can find, and I think contrary to the spirit of the act. As to the defendant Monroe, my judgment is that, upon all the affidavits and facts presented at the hearing, a preliminary injunction ought not now to issue. The only clear evidence of infringement is contained in Mr. Monroe’s affidavit, in which he admits the sale of 85 mantels of the various designs covered by complainant’s patents. These were sold -in August, 1890, very shortly after the patents were granted, and before their validity had been established. Tío swears that at that time ho liad no knowledge of the existence of the patents, and it was shown that sales had been made for several months, by both complainant and the defendants, before the granting of the patents, so that it is reasonable to believe that he did not know of the patents. He denies that he has taken any orders for or sold any mantels of those designs since he received notice from the complainants of his ownership of the patents. No evidence has been furnished by the complainant to disprove these statements, and the case rests upon the sale of the 35 mantels, which, under all the circumstances, would not warrant the granting of the preliminary injunction. The complainant may at any time hereafter, however, renew his motion, if he should discover evidence of further infringement. The motion must be for the present refused; and it is so ordered.