Potter v. Muller
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio
In equity. This was a motion [by Orlando B. Potter, Nathaniel Wheeler, and others] to dissolve a provisional' injunction, granted to restrain the defendant [Anton Muller] from infringing reissued letters patent Nos. 340 and 414, for “improvements in sewing machines,” issued to Allen B. Wilson, and more particularly set forth in the report of Potter v. Wilson [Case No. 11,342]. The defendant claimed to be the first and original inventor of the improvements patented to Wilson,…
Read the full summary
In equity. This was a motion [by Orlando B. Potter, Nathaniel Wheeler, and others] to dissolve a provisional' injunction, granted to restrain the defendant [Anton Muller] from infringing reissued letters patent Nos. 340 and 414, for “improvements in sewing machines,” issued to Allen B. Wilson, and more particularly set forth in the report of Potter v. Wilson [Case No. 11,342]. The defendant claimed to be the first and original inventor of the improvements patented to Wilson, and denied infringement.
1Opinion of the Court
LEAVITT, District Judge.
This is an application to dissolve the preliminary injunction granted in this case. The injunction was allowed after due notice to the defendant, but without opposition on his part; and the only question on the pending motion is, whether it is a proper case for the allowance of the writ ? If the court is now satisfied that the order for the writ ought not to have been made, the injunction will be dissolved; if otherwise, it will be perpetuated.
The complainants aver in their bill that they are the owners, by legal assignments, of the exclusive right and benefit of a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dickerson v. De la Vergne Refrigerating Machine Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888