Deere & Webber Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 153 F. 177
• 82 C.C.A. 351
• 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4401

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Suit foe Infringement — Breading.</p> <p>Under the rule that answers in equity must be full, unequivocal, and responsivo to tiie bill, where a bill for infringement of a patent alleges past and present infringement, and that defendant then had on hand a large number of infringing machines which it was offering for sale, an answer which admits that defendant had previously sold a machine which had been adjudged an infringement, but alleges that it had ceased selling the samp “long prior” to the beginning of the suit and returned the parts on hand to the manufacturer, and since “that time” had sold no machines of that character, is indefinite and evasive and not responsive, and must be treated as admitting the averment that defendant liad infringing machines on hand which it was offering for sale.</p> <p>2. Same — Disclaimer of Intention to Infringe When Sufficient to Avoid</p> <p>Injunction.</p> <p>Where the answer in a suit in equity for infringement of ,a patent denies the validity of the patent, and asserts the rigid of defendant to make and vend the machine covered thereby, and also by implication admits an allegation of the bill that it has on hand and is offering for sale a large number of infringing machines, a mere averment that it ceased selling an alleged infringing machine prior to the commencement of the suit, and has no intention of using or selling any machines embodying the features of the patent, not supported by any clear proof, is not such a disclaimer as will deprive the complainant of the right to an injunction.</p> <p>3. Same — infringement—Grain Drills.</p> <p>The Hoyt patent, No. 446,230. for a grain drill, held valid and infringed.</p>