836 FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �ized iron, would be more durable and more easily cleaned. But it is within common knowledge that such linings had been used analo- gously in many other vessels made to contain liquida, because of these advaiitages. Suoh a lining had also been employed, as deseribed in the Belgian patent of Heidt, for forming the bottom of a trough or channel nised for the deposition of starch, in the place of the tray used by Owen. Inasmuch as the court will not decide doubtful questions as to complainant's right upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the motion fails as to this patent. The other patents are not seri- ously assailed, and it is not denied that the defendants have appro- priated the improvements covered by them, and are now employing them in their glucose factories. �An attempt bas been made to present the defence of abandonment. It is not claimed that there had been any abandonment before the letters patent were obtained, and the facts disclosed signally fail to show any intention on the part of the owners of the patents to aban- don or dedicate their rights to the public subsequently. It is not shown that the owners of the patents prier to the Jebbs, who acquired title in the spring of 1881, had any knowledge that the defendants or others were using the patented improvements. It wouid seem to be fairly inferable, although not distinctly shown, that the Gilberts, who owned all the patents prior to the purohase by the Jebbs, intended to preclude the public from participation in the use of the patents, and to use them exclusively in their own starch factories. The improvements were Burreptitiously appropriated from the Gilberts by Fox & Co., from whom they were also surreptitiously acquired by the BufEalo Grape Sugar Company and these defendants. The history of the process patent throws no light upon that of the apparatus patents. �It is insisted that the complainant has not shown such an exclu- sive enjoyment by the owners of the patents, and recognition by the public of their rights, as to authorize a preliminary injunction, in the absence of any adjudication upon the patent. If, by the policy of the owners, information as to the practical working of the inventions was withheld from the public, of course there could not be such a recog- nition and acquiescence as in many of the cases has been held to be necessary. Formerly the rule undoubtedly was that a preliminary injunction would not be granted unless the right secured by the pat- ent was fortified by evidence of an exclusive or recognized enjoyment of the right, or by former adjudications sustaining it. In more re- cent practice this rule has been relaxed when the validity of the pat- ��� �
