LADD v. CAMERON. 37
ing the reissue was to enable the complainant to assert a colorable
title to an invention to which all subsequent inventors must pay trib-
ute, this was an illegitimate and oppressive motive, and the court
should not be eager to come to their assistance when their patent is
assailed, by granting them a remedy preliminary to final hearing.
As was said by Lord Ewen in Rundell v. Murray, Jac. 311:
"N ot only conduct with the party with whom the contest exists, but con-
duct with others, may influence the court in the exercise of its equitable ju-
risdiction by injunction." -
This remark was cited with approval by Lord Corrnuntm in Saun-
ders v. Smith, 3 Mylne & G. 711, 730. The patent, as reissued, is well
calculated to suggest doubts asto its validity,·and lead those who ex-
amine it to suppose that such an abuse of the statutory privilege can-
not be tolerated. The officers of the complainant have only them-
selves to blame if others had acted on the assumption that the patent
cannot stand. The defendant has acted upon this belief.
Under such circumstances the complainant should not have the
stringent remedy applied for, and it is not only within the fair dis-
cretion, but it is the duty, of the court to deny preliminary relief, and
leave the complainant to the ordinary relief at final hearing.
LADD, Trustee, etc., v. CAMERON.
(Uircuit Court, D. New Jersey. August 15, 1885.) I
1.·PATENTB iron INVENTIONS—I)liELIMINARY IN.m1<er1oN—l)Eo1s1oN nv Auoruma
Cmcurr AS ro Vamprrr or PA·r1cN*r.
Wliere a. patent has been declared valid by a decision in another circuit in a f
contest respecting a preliminary injunction, such decision will be followed un-
less new evidence is presented of sucha character and significance that it would
probably, if introduced in the first cause, have led to a different decision. `
2. SAME-—LACHES. A
A preliminary injunction will not be granted when it is shown that the de-
fendant has, with the knowledge of complainant, openly used the infringing
mechanism for more than seven years before the institution of the suit.
I
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Chas. D. Adams and W. C'. Witter, for the motion.
· M. T. Newbold and A. Z. Kcasbcy, contra.
Nrxou, J. The application for a preliminary injunction in this
case must be refused. The complainant’s patent has been declared
valid, after protracted litigations, by the circuit court of the United
States for the Southern district of New York. I fully recognize the
propriety of following the decisions of my brethren in other circuits,
and in all contests respecting preliminary injunctions. I accept as
conclusions such adjudications, unless new evidence is presented of
such a character and signihcance that it would probably, if intro-