St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. Sanitary Street Flushing Mach. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. In 3904 the Sanitary Street Flushing Machine Company exhibited its bill against the St. Louis Street Flushing Machine Company, William Ratican, Stephen J. Ratican, and James C. Wilson, to secure an injunction and accounting for an infringement of letters patent of the United States Nos. 736.134 and 786,135, granted to Thomas M. Murphy as inventor, and William Ratican as assignee of some…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. In 3904 the Sanitary Street Flushing Machine Company exhibited its bill against the St. Louis Street Flushing Machine Company, William Ratican, Stephen J. Ratican, and James C. Wilson, to secure an injunction and accounting for an infringement of letters patent of the United States Nos. 736.134 and 786,135, granted to Thomas M. Murphy as inventor, and William Ratican as assignee of some interest, and by them assigned to complainant, for improvements in nozzles and street washers respectively. The prayer…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Neither the original nor the amended bill warranted a preliminary injunction. They contained no showing that the patents charged to have been infringed had ever been admitted to be valid by the defendant, or held valid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or that their validity had been generally acquiesced in by the public. Without a showing of one or the other of these facts, no preliminary injunction ought to be granted in a patent case. Recognizing this rule, no attempt was made to secure an injunction on the strength of the showing made in the bill…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. MusgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Albright v. TeasSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. HyattSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Congress of Racial Equality v. DouglasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Willis v. LauridsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Boynton v. Fox West Coast Theatres CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Paramount Pictures Corporation v. HoldenDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Helms Bakeries v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.