Stebler

Stebler v. Riverside Heights Orange Growers' Ass'n

Good Law
131 C.C.A. 96·214 F. 550·1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1155
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 30, 1914No. 2394California1,908 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

(after stating the facts as above). 1. The plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of the machines covered by his patent, and the sole profits which he derives from his patent are those arising from the manufacture and sale of the machines covered thereby. The suits brought by the plaintiff, and sought to be enjoined *553 by the petition of the defendants, are against users- of machines which had been manufactured and sold by the defendants prior to the rendition of the opinion of this court and the entry of the interlocutory decree in the lower court pursuant thereto.

The theory of the defendants’ petition is that, under the accounting ordered in the interlocutory decree entered in the court below, the plaintiff would receive full compensation for all infringing machines which' had been manufactured and sold by the defendants in violation of the plaintiff’s patent; that such machines would be thereafter released from any claim on the part of the plaintiff by virtue of his patent; and that the plaintiff, pending the entry of the final judgment against the defendants in this suit, is not entitled to bring or maintain any suits against the persons or corporations," customers of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.