KRYPTOK CO. v. HARRIS; SAME v. STRAUS et al.

KRYPTOK CO. v. HARRIS. SAME v. STRAUS et al. (District Court, S. D. New York. June 18, 1914.) Patents (§ 306) — Suit fob Infringement — Preliminary Injunction. • Preliminary injunctions against infringement of patents granted, in suits against dealers only, subject to suspension pending decision in a suit against the manufacturer on the giving of security by defendants. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 500, 501; Dec. Dig. § 306.] In Equity. Suits by the Kryptok Company against Moses I. Harris and against Jesse I. Straus and others, trading as R. H. Macy & Co. On motions for preliminary injunctions. Granted. Wm. M. Stockbridge, of New York City, for plaintiff. Howard P. Denison, of Syracuse, N. Y., for defendant Harris. Howard P. Denison and Eugene A. Thompson, both of Syracuse, N. Y., for defendant Straus. For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — WARD, Circuit Judge.] WARD, Circuit Judge. The complainant exploits the patents in *»uit by means of licenses and these suits are against dealers. A suit against manufacturers is soon to be reached for final hearing before Judge Hazel in the Northern district. In it a mass of new proofs have been already taken, which have been submitted to me on this motion, and more are still to be taken. Under these circumstances preliminary injunctions may go, but they will be suspended pending the decision of the cause in the Northern district, provided the defendants give proper security to pay to the complainant any damages or profits which may hereafter be awarded.