38 FEDERAL naroizrmu.
Cam and others v. Doivimsrio Srama-BED Co. and others}
· (Oircuit Court, D. New Jersey. January 6, 1886.)
1. Pxrnnrs ron INVENTIONS—PBELIMINARY Imoivcrioiv.
No new facts appearing from defendants aiiidavit, a preliminary injunc-
tion was granted in this case, without an examination of the merits or any
expression of opinion upon the validity of the patent; following the ruling in
Cary v. Wow 24 Fed. Rep. 139.
2. SAME—MOTION TO DrssoLvE Pnmmmnsnr INJUNCTION.
Upon a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, the defendants con·
ceded the utility of the invention, but sought to show by affidavits that the
patentee was not the first inventor. The court, not deciding that such evi-
dence was conclusive as to the prior use, held that it was of a character to
suggest grave doubts on this point, and dissolved the injunction.
3. SAME—RuLE as ro D1ssoLv1No IN.rUNc·r1oNs.
It is a good rule that evidence which would prevent the issuing of an in-
junction ought to be regarded as sunicient to dissolve one already granted.
In Equity.
Mr. Collins and Mr. Keosbey, for defendants.
Mr. Duncan and Mr. Witter, for complainants.
Nrxon, J. The validity of the complainants patent was passed
upon and sustained by his honor, Judge WHEELER, in the case of
Cary v. Wotf, 24 Fed. Rep. 139, pending for several years in the cir-
cuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.
Judge Aouusou, in the Western district of Pennsylvania, followed
Judge WHEELER, and granted to the complainant a preliminary in-
. junction. 24 Fed. Rep. 141. An application was then made to this
court, in July last, for a provisional injunction, and Ending that no
facts were revealed by the affidavits which had not been considered by
the learned judge in the Wow C'ase,I ordered the injunction, without
an examination of the merits, or expressing any opinion upon the
validity of the patent. ·
The defendants now introduce a number of new affidavits, relating
to the novelty of the invention, and move to vacate and dissolve the
_ injunction heretofore granted. They seem to occupy new ground.
They acknowledge the value of Cary's alleged invention; concede, as
the patent claims, that, in the operation of coiling the wire into
springs, the metal is weakened by disturbing the molecules,—the outer
portion of the coil being drawn or stretched, and the inner portion
crushed or shortened,—and admit that the elasticity and strength,
lost by the distortion, is more than restored by subjecting the spring,
for a few minutes, to a degree of heat known as "spring·temper heat."
They claim, nevertheless, that Cary has been anticipated in the dis-
V covery that spiral springs are improved in elasticity by such a pro-
cess; and that the fact was known, and the process in public use,-
by the affidavits,-some years before he claims to have discovered and
used it.
llleported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.