UNITED STATES
v.
MCKEIVER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the validity of the plaintiff's patents was not clearly and convincingly shown.
[1] Preliminary injunction in patent infringement cases requires clear and convincing showing of patent validity.
[2] Court's discretion in granting preliminary injunctions is paramount.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Acknowledging infringement if patents are valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff holds two patents for a spillproof glass and sued the defendants for infringement, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The plaintiff …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Infringement cases and more on FLexlaw
RAYFIEL, District Judge.
The plaintiff is the holder of two patents; one a design patent, numbered 165,778, dated January 29, 1952, and the other, a mechanical patent, numbered 2,623,368, dated December 30, 1952, covering a spillproof glass. He has sued the defendants for infringing said patents, claiming that they are manufacturing and distributing a product identical to his, and in his complaint he seeks injunctive relief and an accounting for damages. He has moved herein for a preliminary injunction claiming that the said infringement is causing irreparable damage to his business.
The defendants, in opposing the plaintiff’s application, contend that the patents in question are invalid for lack of invention and novelty, and for double patenting.
An examination of the glasses manufactured by the plaintiff and the allegedly infringing glasses discloses their similarity. That fact appears not to be disputed by the defendants. Hence, if the patents are valid, there is prima facie infringement.
The defendants have cited several patents to show prior art. I was particularly impressed with the Yon Baeyer patent, numbered 900,644, dated October 6, 1908, and the Rice patent, numbered 2,-608,841, dated September 2, 1952. They cover spillproof cups similar to the plaintiff’s.
It is well settled that the plaintiff’s right to a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Court, and that to warrant its granting the propriety of the relief must be clearly and convincingly shown. National Commodities Co. v. Viret, 2 Cir., 296 F. 664; Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 6 Cir., 55 F. 2d 800; Caron Corporation v. Maison Jeurelle-S even-teen, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 560. Since I am not convinced of the validity of the plaintiff’s patents the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Settle order on notice.