Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/622

 CS0S8 V. LlYERMOEB. 607 �inade, constrained him to abandon the prosecution of the idea. But he did not so abandon it until he had fnlly developed the process, and until it was understood by himself, Lee, and Davidson; and this, -we think, is enough, under the autliority of Cqffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, to supersede and overthrow complainants' patent. A decree wUl be entered dismissing complainants' bill with costs. ���CeOSS V. LiVBEMORB. �(Circuit Court, D. Bhode Island. 1881.) �1. liKTTBBS Patent — Sttlographic oh Fountaik Pens— Pueliminart Intokc- �TIONEt i �A preliminary injunction will be refused where grave doubt exista, on the evidence, whether there bas been any infringement, and there is some doubt as to the valldity of the patent, Hence, a motion for a preliminary injunction, made by Alonzo T, Gross, as the patentee of lettcrs patent Nos. 199,621 and 227,416, and reissued letters patent No. 9,716, for improvcments in stylographie orfountain pens, against Charles W. Livermore, is denied. �In Equity. Motion for preliminary injunction. �SamZ. J. EMer, for complainant. �Oscar Laphatn and Benj. F. Tkurston, for defendant. �CoLT, D. J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. It is daimed by the coinplairiant that the defendant bas been guilty of an infringement of certain patents issued to him for improvements in .stylographie or fountain pens. The inventions of the complainant, as set out in bis several letters patent, are for certain improved com- hinations of several parts or elements, whereby a more perfect pen is secured. �In entering upon the consideration of a proceeding of this eharac- ter, we are to bear in mind — First, that whenever, upon the facts presented, a fair and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the de- fendant bas actually been guilty of an infringement, or when it does not satisfactorily appear that the complainant is the first and sole inventor of the improvements claimed, a preliminary injunction will be refused. High, Inj. § 606; Dodge v. Card, 2 Fisb. 116; Parker V. Sears, 1 Fish. 93; Thomas v. Weeks, 2 Paine, 92. Second, that if an alleged infringer uses less tban all of the elements of a combi- nation, and substitutes something for the part which he omits, there is no infringement, unless the substituts is a mere mechanical equiv- ��� �