Bradley v. Eccles
Citations
- 120 F. 947
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5312
Syllabus
<p>1. Patents — Suit for Infringement — Preliminary Injunction.</p> <p>If there is substantial doubt as to the validity of an unadjudicated patent, and the defendant is responsible in damages, a preliminary injunction against its infringement should not be granted.</p> <p>2. Same — Prior Public Use — Evidence.</p> <p>Affidavits of disinterested persons as to the prior public use of a patented article, which are positive in their statements, free from inconsistencies and improbabilities and accompanied by exhibits, cannot be ignored on a motion for a preliminary injunction against infringement, and are sufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the patent, and prevent the granting of the injunction, where uncontradieted.</p> <p>S. Same — Unadjudicated Patent.</p> <p>The validity of the Hannan reissued patent, No. 11,260, for a thill coupling, held not sufficiently established, as against a showing of prior public use and abandonment, to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction against its infringement; it never having been adjudicated.</p> <p>¶ 1. See Patents, vol. 38, Cent. Dig. § 495.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a party’s “diligence in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
- explaining that a party’s “diligence in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
- noting that whether movant was “diligen[t] in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
- noting that whether movant was “diligen[t] in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
- noting that whether movant was “diligen[t] in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
- noting that whether movant was “diligen[t] in attempting to meet the requirements of the scheduling order is the primary measure of Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.