American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Crown-Columbia Pulp & Paper Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon
In Equity. On demurrer to bill. The purpose of this suit is to enjoin the infringement of a patent. By the averments of the bill it appears that the complainant is the owner of a patent upon an invention for pulp digesters.
Read the full summary
In Equity. On demurrer to bill. The purpose of this suit is to enjoin the infringement of a patent. By the averments of the bill it appears that the complainant is the owner of a patent upon an invention for pulp digesters. The life of the patent extended to January 27, 1908. The complainant claims a monopoly of the patent, but shows that it is ready, able, and willing, and now stands ready, able, and willing, to supply the entire demand for the market; that since the grant of the letters patent the complainant has given full and ample notice to all pulp manufacturers of the United States…
1Opinion of the CourtWolverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The strong objection to the bill is that it does not state a case for equitable cognizance; the principal reason urged being that it appears from the averments thereof that the complainant has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.
Preliminarily, it should be stated that the suit was instituted December 10, 1907, and the defendant was required, under the subpoena, to answer the exigencies of the bill January 6, 1908. The complainant’s patent expired January 27, 1908—48 days after the suit was instituted. While counsel for defendant call attention to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Clark v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Beedle v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Busch v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Ross v. City of Ft. WayneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
- United States Mitis Co. v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Le Roy v. De Vry Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926