BRUSR ,ELEOTRIC CO. 17. ELECTRIO IMP. CO.
241
In re
SImrlONB.
(C4n'cu1.t Court, E. D. NmJJ York. HABEAS CORPUs-RES ADroDIOATA.
February 18, 1891.)
A writ of habeas corpus will not issue where it appears by the petition that the question at Issue has been deelded adversely to the petitioner by another judge in a oauee on trial in the same oourt, especially when luoh decision can be reviewed by the full court.
,At lBw. Petition forhabeaa .corpus. · Richd.rdNmJJcoolbe, C/w;rles A. Hess, E. H. Murphy, and J. J. Jayce, fot petitioner.· ' . , Edward Mitchell, U. S. Dist. Atty., and AbriOO J. Rose, Ex.-Asst. U. S. Atty.,· for 'respondent. , WALLACE, J. This writ is refused, because, as appears by the petition,. the question upon which a decision is sought has been considered apd. decided adversely to the contention for the petitioner by Judge BENEDICTjin a cause now on trial in this court. That decision, until it is reversed· upon a review in this court, ought to be authoritative; otherwise there might be conflicting adjudications upon the same question in the same court. It would be unseemly and prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice for one judge to revie,v and reverse, in a collateral prt>ceeding, a decision made by another judge sitting in the same court,!and especially so in a cause now in progress 'in this court,in which the decisioncompIained'of'can be reviewed by the full court if the cause proceeds, and the petitioner is convicted,but can never be reviewed if the Pl3titiOnel should be discharged upon this proceeding.
'BatteR ELECTRIC
Co. et ale 17.
ELECTRIC IMP.
Co.
(OO'cuit Oourt, N. D. OaW·orniQ.January 1!6,1891.) 1. · Thf!Brulh eleotrio light patent, No. is valid, and its 1lrst six ola1msare IDfril1ged by the Wood lamp. FolloWing Bnulh El.ectrlc 00. v. Ft. Wa-yne Ele<>WtO 00., .., Feel. Rep. 284. The .questions involved depending IOle1y on the construotlon of tWlI patents .which have· been fully examined in many of the United States circuit cou'rts,and !Ui ·. injunotlQn at the final appearing to be inevitable, an injunction pencknte ZUt Will be granted, DotWitbBtanding laches of the complainant in 88serting itnights. . , INroNOTION·.
INVBNTIONs-b'FJllNGBMEl'IT.
.
·
..
to
.plainant.:
InEqUity.
liagg;.n
v.45F.no.4-16
Ne88 and Robt. & 'PallWr, for ;re,spondent.
242
, ,nJP;ERAJ;, '1\EJ.>OaTER,
vol. 45. '
Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
SAWYER, J. This is a suit in equity for damages, and to enjoin the infringetbentof/j:Jatent. to Charles F. Brush, September 2, 1879. The infringement charged, is, by. the use ,of the Wood lamp. before the ,circuitcourts of the northern district of Indiana, thenQrthern district of Illinois, and' the' ribttI1ern' district of Ohio, andsustaiiled after elaborate and exhaustive examinations, by Judges GRESHAM, BLODGETT, BROWN, and RICKS. I have, especiftlly,and,,careftilly,'examilled,'.the lucidallda:ble opinion$ of now,of the United States supreme court, concurred in by Judge RWKS, in B1'U8h Electric G>.v. cJ.c,.,PQWf/I: Rep. 583, and. 6{,Judge concurred in by Judge GRESHAM, in Brush Elf'ctric {lo.ll.r1!t.WaY?le QIRi;.. tric G>., 44 Fed. Rep. 284, and others,' and I fully concur in their reaSOIling' pDq (lOnc1llr4w.hS ,9Ildl11 tqepointsJ30 ,sa-tisfactorUydisCllSSOO in tbos,e! . tl,lejqfringiQg lamp W&Lthe, Wood.lampi <the t,l;lis case; !8J1.d,that it ill lamp; .it to,me, is shown In my presof amountof,im,lPIlg :!lndispOlied'Qf,1]J tiJ:llt;Ap lJ.QQ n,eW. to the l{dIU,jmble reasoning tbe. ;In .lX1y Judgment, *eBJrush patent is the, pra,t,!,xqd,a,ims a,re iQ-fx:i.llgei! ,by the,W'QQdJll.mp. It is upon and ;1h!'1Q fail, there ougqtfp ,b.e J;Ip, temp,?r,,!,ry i:llljllnotiQnipending the suit.,' but, that upon some equitable.terms, I,\n: ipju,l1<ltionahpuld bf'l \V;ithheld jill it that the complainant is entitled to one, after a final hearing, and decision upon the merits. But these questions have been, elaborately, and, exhaustively, argued over andover agaiii,by counsel among the ablest in the land, in patent law, in many of the districts from and including the llortherndistrict theno{thel'n Every adaitlorial thought, "and experience to additional argument the discussion.. ;1:lJ;'e" ''fIIJj depending upon the doubtful testimony of witnesses, but questions of the construction of two patents claimed to. be, in:eonflict.· Both,cdunsel, SAd 'the ,oppos'i'l;ig have exammoo these patents qUIetly, lD theIr have there at their these'patents, 'r¢speptivwy, COyer;' 'aridpresen:ied them. t(),. the- court. ,True, as usual, hhd the courts, have enjoyed the full benefit of thelroareful and scientific study and suggestions. After so many exhaustive arguments, upon a thorough consideration, and knowledge (iipAhErca!lEi, it likely to be m'ade upon the' construction of these patents, which will so change thedeliberate views P.Jltli)e· COUl'p:a:s .to defeat 1m injunctiolfat'the&al
()r
"
:"
:
...
;.."
../
CAMPBELL V. lfA.¥QR, ETC;, :OF'THE ,mTYOF NEW YORK.
'J;l;t6 tqe Wood,light is nokcontroverted,.l' It is, urged, ,also, on the part oftbe defendant, that the laches of the complainant in E!nforeingit5 ,rights against: lihe estop itfrom insistiJ;1gupQn 9btainingan injunction This doctrine oflac4es,as .r npderstand it,is, generally, applicable to preliminary injuI}.<;tion,only. When, upon a final hearing a, party, clearly, appears to be entitled tl) an' injunction, unless he has been guilty of thltt, as a general rule,the injuncftion, as a part of bisc9mplete 1emedy,would not, ordinarily, be denied on, the ground of la<;QfS It is quite possible, that a,case may arise, where laches, surrounde4&n4attended by other circumstances, may render it grant an injunction, as aj>art of the relief afforded ',at thefiOlu 'hEl!U'ing. But, if so, this is not. a. case of tMt class. When it apparept, as inthiscasp , after repeated,exhaulltive examinations of the patents, thlj.t Pon injunction at the ,final hearing is, inevitable, it the court, tbat an injunction, pBltdente lite, should be granted. Let be granted, restraining, till the final, hearing, or the fUJ;1:h!lJ! order pf the court, tbe .infringement of the first aU claims of complaiAAn$ts,patent, upontbe execution of a,bond to be approved bytbe clel'k of ,I dol1!1rs.· :. i r, -'
::.
C.utt>:hELL 17. MAYOR, .. i
Ere.,
OF- THE
CITY
OF NEW YORL
(C(rcuU Oourt, 8. D. New York; February 4,i89Ll . 'i
i:
L P
Under Rev. st. U. S. § 4920,wllicb reqUires that, where the defense to a sulHn eqliit. ''10.r, t, of a Jlatent is Pr,ior', k,nowle,dge,:or, use 01, tbe patent by,otl\.r., .notioe.shall b!3 given WIth ot ,thenamea andresi· deuoo8of the'persOlls havinlt such knowledge,or making SucbUs6,and of the place " M the \lIle, it is 'not necessary that such Doticealiould be uJiderGath. ' '
. IN,' EQUITY-PrmADINO.
,.
.. BUB-oAN8!11'EJUINDER OATa...,.PLEADINO.
. Wlie,re,C4;)lIlplainant's cpunsel in such suit consent to an o,rder tbat the answer :.hail.be considered as amended by the insertion of such defense and the reqUired .: iilOnSel\t is a waiver of funher oath. ', , ASIDE. , ":
.,', " .Wh'er6 the,order allowing tbe amendment made on motion supported davits, was oneba"'illg drawlugsattaclIed shliwing tbe course otthe $e operation of tbe, reliefvalve, which was.tbe Invention in suit, the '1act'tMt"8uc'l drawing gives Ii. wrong impression ali to tbe operation of the!valve 1. ,no' ground ,for vacatingt.heorder. as baving been procured by falsehood aild fraud; : i . . . . '
was
{i.:i'/:
':'.1
; WHEI'£ER.tJ.. : Tl¥abiUJa brought JllIlUeaKnibbaJor,a relief .valiVe i:n steam;
of a patent,to ,and .was sustained
