AMERICAN GAS CONTROLLER & FIXTURE CO. v. SIEMENS-LUNGREN CO.

AMERICAN GAS CONTROLLER & FIXTURE CO. v. SIEMENS-LUNGREN CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. February 14, 1893.) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United State for the District of New Jersey. In Equity. Bill by the SiemensfLungren Company against the American Gas Controller & Fixture Company for infringement of letters patent No. 299,660, and oí claims 1, 2, anti 4 of Ño. 282,337, issued to Andrew B. Lipsey, respectively, June 3, 1884, and July 31, 1883, for improvements in gas lamps. The infringement alleged consisted in the manufacture and salo oí the so-called “Arc Gas Lamp.” A motion for a preliminary injunction having been heard, the court made an order that defendant within 15 days file a bond in the clerk’s office in the sum of §15,000, in default whereof a preliminary injunction should issue pursuant to the prayer of the bill. Defendant having failed to file the bond an injunction was issued, and from this interlocutory order defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed. The injunction was asked for,on the following grounds: (1) Clear infringement^ (2) undisturbed possession and acquiescence; (3) total irresponsibility at the defendants. The defenses were: (1) Noiiinimigeinent; (2) anticipation by certain patents to Westphal and others, all of which were subsequent to J8S1; (3) anticipation by or Insufficiency of invention in view of the patent to Siemens, No. 211,077, of May 3, 1881, based upon the prior French and German patents to Siemens. In order to avoid the effect of these alleged anticipations, plaintiff offered evidence to carry back the Lipsey invention to March, 1881, as adjudged by the patent office in certain interference proceedings in the case of Lipsey v. Sanderson. John L S. Roberts, for appellant John. R. Bennett, for appellee. Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and WALES and BUFFINGTON, District Judges. [MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, District Judge.] BUFFINGTON, District Judge. A careful examination satisfies this court that under all the facts before it there was no error in the court below awarding a preliminary injunction. As the case may hereafter come before us on final hearing, we abstain from discussing it. The appeal is dismissed, at the cost of the appellant