. covmvr v. emma. *43
Covnm v. Cuarrs.
(Urrcuit Court, N D. New York. October 3, 1885.)
Pamms ron INVEN'1‘IONS——INFRlNGEhIENT—ROPE·CLAMPS.
Patent No. 208,157, granted September 17, 1878, to James C. Covert for an
improvement in rope-clamps, held infringed by the sale by defendant of sim-
ilar clamps, and a preliminary injunction granted.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
William H. King, for complainant.
Coburn d Thachcr, for defendant.
Goxn, J. The complainant is the inventor of an improvement in
rope-clamps, for which a patent, No. 208,157, was granted September
17, 1878. The specification contains two claims. The first is for the
method of connecting one part of a rope adjacent to another part, or
the ends of two ropes, by clamping with one or more open metallic
rings, under extreme pressure. The second is for one or more open
rings clamped around a braided or twisted rope, under pressure, to .
prevent unbraiding or untwisting. Since the date of the patent the
complainant has, in the business of his Hrm, manufactured and sold
large numbers of the patented clamps. Capital has been invested,
expensive machinery purchased, skilled labor employed, and a high
degree of proficiency attained in the character of the goods manu-
factured. The result is that a large and flourishing business has been
established, which will be greatly injured by competition, and espe-
cially so if inferior and unworkmanlike goods are permitted in the
market. Though the patented device is largely used, the complainant ·
is in a situation to supply all demands; his exclusive right to do so
having been generally acquiesced in by the public. .
It is suggested in one of the affidavits read by the defendant that
there is no infringement, because the ends of the rings sold by him are
not beveled and do not overlap. This contention is clearly untenable.
An examination of the claims discloses the fact that the beveled ends
are no part of the invention. They are, in the description, recom-
mended as being preferable to square ends, but are not claimed.
The prior patents, drawings, and exhibits referred to by the defend- i`
ant have been examined, and it is thought that none of them antici-
` pates the complainant’s invention, so far, at least, as the nrst claim
is concerned. Neither can it be maintained upon this proof that the
patent is invalid for lack of invention.
It is manifest that a refusal of the relief asked for will work great,
and perhaps irreparable, injury to the complainant’s business. On
the other hand, it is not easy to perceive how the defendant, who is a
merchant and not amanufacturer, can be materially injured by being
required to discontinue his sales until the questions at issue can be
nnally determined. The_ motion is granted. y   _ -