NEW YORK GRAPE SUGAR CO. V. AMERICAN URAPE SUGAR 00. 835 �New Yoek Grape Sdgab Co. v. Amerioan Grape Sugar Co. and �:•;;; OthetS. �{Circuit Court, N. D. New Tork. March 3, 1882.) �1. Patents— Want of Noveltt. �The employment of sheet metal as a lining for the bottom of a vessel to con- tain liquida involves no invention. �2. SAMB — PKKLIMmART INJUNCTION. �Where the questions as to the complainant's rights under his patent are doubtf ul, they will not be entertained on a motion for a preliminary injunction. �3. Bamb— Whbn Injunction Gbanted. �When the validity of the patent is not assailed, and the proof of infringe- ment is clear, the court will grant a preliminary injunction. �4. Pbovisionaii Injunction. �Where the defendants are entirely responsible, and complainant can be ade- quately compensated, irreparable damage is an indispensable element in an application for a provisional injunction. �Dickerson e Dickerson, for complainant. Roscoe Conkling, of eounsel. �Bowen, Rogers e Locke, for defendants. Geo. Harding, of eounsel. �Wallace, D. J. The complainant moves for a preliminary injunc- tion to restrain the defendants from infringing four patents owned by complainant relating to improvements in the apparatus for manufao- turing starch. Of these patents the first was isBued January 14, 1868, to John A. Owens, and was reissued to Thomas A. Jebb and Will- iam T. Jebb, May 31, 1881, for a combination of an agitator and vi- brating sereen or sieve; the second was issued May 26, 1868, to John A. Owens, for an improvement in starch trays, which consists in f orming the bottoms of sheet metal ; the third was issued September 8, 1868, to J. J. Gilbert, as assignee of Colgate Gilbert, for a bolting sieve vibrated, supported, and fed as described, and the constituent parts thereof ; and the fourth was issued to Colgate Gilbert, April 15, 18'73, for an adjustable support to a starch separator. Except as to the second patent, the defendants have entirely failed to impugn the right of the complainant to an injunction, if this were a final hearihg instead of a motion for a preliminary injunction. �As to the second patent, sufBcient appears to raise doubts as to the patentable novelty of the improvement described. It would seem that the employment of sheet metal as a lining for the bottom of a starch tray involves no invention, The bottom had been rnade of ' wood, andi uhdoubtedly, when lined with lead or copper or gai van-' ��� �
