Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

(10) IMPLIED WARRANTEE.-The vendor impliedly warrants the validity of the patent and the title.2

3

5. Assignment of Unpatented Invention.-An assignment of an unpatented invention gives only an equitable title to the letters patent when issued, except where the assignment contains matter showing that it was intended to operate upon the legal title to the letters patent, when the right to the monopoly and the property it created is by the operation of the assignment vested in the assignee.4 An assignment of an unpatented inven

joy privilege against persons not claiming rights under vendor, or estop him from showing that his patent is invalid in mitigation of damages. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64. Nor that the patentee shall have the benefit of the invention as fully as patentee holds it. McKenzie v. Bailie, 4 Cin. L. B. 1 (Ohio) 209. See also IMPLIED WarRANTY, vol. 10, p. 85.

1. Faulks v. Kamp, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 432; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 73; s. c., 3 Fed. Rep. 898; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 851; Dickinson v. Hall, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 217; Rowe v. Blanchard, 18 Wis. 441; Shepherd v. Jenkins, 73 Mo. 510.

Hence a void patent is not a good consideration for a promissory note. Dickinson v. Hull, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 217; Bliss v. Negus, 8 Mass. 46; Cross v. Huntley, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 385; Gieger v. Cook, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 266; Bellas v. Hays, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 427; Bierce v. Stocking, 11 Gray (Mass.) 174; Head v. Stephens, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 411; Higgins v. Strong, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 182; McClure v. Jeffrey, 8 Ind. 79; Rowe v. Blanchard, 18 Wis. 441; First Bank v. Peck, 8 Kan. 660; Turner v. Johnson, 2 Cranch (C. C.) 287; Nye v. Raymond, 16 Ill. 153; Jolliffe v. Collins, 21 Mo. 338; Springfield v. Drake, 58 N. H. 19; Lester v. Palmer, Allen (Mass.) 145. See Failure of Consideration, infra.

2. Faulks v. Kamp, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 432: s. c., 3 Fed. Rep. 898; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 85; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 851; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 85; s. c., 4 Fed. Rep. 148; Curran v. Birdsall, 20 Fed. Rep. 148; Curran v. Birdsall, 20 Fed. Rep. 885; s. c., 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1319.

3. Wright v. Randel, 8 Fed. Rep. 591; s. c., 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 495; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 493; Clenn v. Brewer, 2 Curt. (U.S.) 506; Hammond v. Hunt, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 111, Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205; s.

c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 964; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story (U. S.) 171; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 257; Troy Iron etc. Co. v. Corning, 14 How. (U. S.) 192; Gay. ler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477; Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1133; United States Stamping Co. v.Jewett, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 469; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1529; s. c., 7 Fed. Rep. 869; Hammond v. Pratt, 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 124.

The legal title vests only when the patent issues. Pontiac Knit Boot Co. v. Merino Shoe Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 286.

Circumstances held not to be an equitable transfer of a subsequently granted patent. Dueber Watch Case Co. v. Dalzell, 38 Fed. Rep. 597, Fuller etc. Co. v. Bartlett, 68 Wis. 73.

4. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477; Rathbone v. Orr, 5 McLean (U. S.) 131; Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fish. Pat. Čas. 1; Herbert v. Adams, 4 Mason (U. S.) 15; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 50; United States Stamping Co. v. Jewett, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 469; s. c., 7 Fed. Rep. 869; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1529; Clenn v. Brewer, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 506; Hendrie v. Sayles, 98 U. S. 546, Emmons v. Sladdin, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 199; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 352.

The ultimate assignee at the date of the issue of the patent, if the assignments show that they intend to operate upon the legal title to letters patent, is the legal owner of them. Selden v. Stockwell etc. Gas Burner Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 390, s. C., 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 544, s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1377, Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co., 33 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1597, s. C., 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 412; s. c., 25 Fed. Rep. 719; Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 335; s. c., 44 Pat. Off. Gaz. 110.

When Assignment Can be Made.-An assignment can be made whenever there is any right in the assignor; it does not matter that the device is not complete.

tion gives a right to all patents that may be issued thereon.1

6. Recording Contracts.-(1) WHAT MAY BE RECORDED.-A conveyance assigning the entire patent right, an undivided part thereof, or of an exclusive right under the patent, within any specified part or portion of the United States, may be recorded properly in the Patent Office. There is no authority to record an agreement for future assignment of any of these interests,3 or for the conveyance of any different interest.4

Rathbone v. Orr, 5 McLean (U. S.) 131; Maurice v. Devol, 23 W. Va. 247. Nor that it is made after a rejection of the application. Gay v. Cornell, I Blatchf. (U.S.) 506.

Or even when the inventions are yet in embryo in the inventor's 'mind. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 34; S. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 311; Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. Rep. 697.

Or even a general sale of the inventive power of a man's mind. Hapgood v. Hewitt, 11 Fed. Rep. 422; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1786; Continental Co. v. Empire Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 295; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Green v. Willard Barrel Co., 1 Mo. App. 202; Appleton v. Bacon, 2 Black (U. S.) 699; Dueber Watch Case Co. v. Dalzel, 38 Fed. Rep. 597.

Or which may be made relating to a certain manufacture. Reese's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 392.

An assignment of the invention is not a putting of it on sale, and does not make a patent granted on an application filed over two years subsequent to such assignment, void. United States Electric Lighting Co. v. Consolidated Electric Light Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 869.

1. Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. Rep.

458.

An assignment of all right, title and interest in an improvement of a machine already patented, conveys no interest in the original patent. Leach v. Dresser, 69 Me. 129.

A right given under an invention not patented will protect the user of it from suit by assignees of patent rights of the vendor of the right under the unpatented invention. Hammond v. Mason etc. Organ Co., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas.

599.

What Amounts to an Assignment of an Unpatented Invention.-An irrevocable power of attorney. Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. (U. S.) 211.

Employee Hired to Invent.-An employee may be hired to invent, in which

case an equitable title is in the employer for the invention. Joliet Mfg. Co. v. Dice, 109 Ill. 649; Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 295; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428.

But no such right exists in the absence of such an agreement. Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226; s. c., 37 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1247; McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. Rep, 419; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 177; Green v. Willard Barrel Co., 1 Mo. App. 202. Nor after the expiration of agreement. Appleton v. Bacon, 2 Black (U. S.) 699.

A contract for the sale of an unpatented invention may be proved by parol. Lockwood v. Lockwood, 33 Iowa 509; Burr v. De La Vergne, 102 N. Y. 415.

Estoppel.--An assignement of an in. terest in a patent does not by itself give any interest in a patent for another invention. Warren v. Cole, 15 Mich. 265; United Nickel Co. v. American Nickel Plating Works, Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 74.

2. Brooks v. Byam, 2 Story (U. S.) 525; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 161; Blanchard v. Eldridge, 1 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 337; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 737; Stevens v. Head, 9 Vt. 174; Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 144; Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean (U. S.) 526; Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327; McKernan v. Hite, 6 Ind. 428; Moore v. Bare, 11 Iowa 198; Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539; Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61.

3. New York Paper Bag Mach. Co. 7. Union Paper Bag Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 783; Wright v. Randel, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 495; s. c., 8 Fed. Rep. 591; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 493.

4. Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; s. c., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575; Farrington v. Gregory, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; Buss v. Putney, 38 N. H. 44; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 30; Gear v. Fitch, 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1231; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 573; Brooks v.

(2) EFFECT OF RECORDING.-The recording of an assignment is not requisite to its validity; and an unrecorded assignment is binding on the parties thereto2 and on others having notice thereof, or mere trespassers. To protect the assignee from subsequent purchasers without notice, it must be recorded within three months of its date. When so recorded it is a complete

3

Byam, 2 Story (U. S.) 525; Stevens v. Head. Vt. 174.

1. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story (U. S.) 609; Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 377.

The contrary doctrine obtains in Indiana. Higgins v. Strong, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 182; Mullikin v. Latchem, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 136.

2. Holden v. Čurtis, 2 N. H. 61; Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327; Moore v. Bare, II Iowa 198; Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 296; Horne v. Chatham, 64 Tex. 36.

Assignees Without Consideration. And against subsequent assignees without consideration. Saxton v. Aultman,

15 Ohio St. 471.

3. Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 195 Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill Co., & Blatchf. (U.S.) 295; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 377; Holden v. Curtis, 5 N. H. 61; Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539; Moore v. Bare, 11 Iowa 198; McKernan v. Hite, 6 Ind. 428; Hapgood v. Rosenstock, 23 Fed. Rep. 86.

What Is Notice of a Prior Contract.A notice of a prior interest. Wright v. Randel, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 495; s. c., 8 Fed. Rep. 591; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz.

493.

Where the assignee is a corporation of which the patentee is director and manager, it has notice through him of any unrecorded assignment. Continental Windmill Co. v. Empire Windmill Co., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 295; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 428; Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 1.

Where an assignment of a right under a patent refers to the invention as being in use by a certain party. Prine v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 453; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat.

Cas. 379.

The record of an assignment as administrator is notice of an assignment of same invention by same person as executor of same decedent. Newell v. West, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 114; S. C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 113; s. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 598; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1110.

And in general anything that puts a person on inquiry. Hawley v. Mitchell, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 388; Sheldon Axle Co. v. Standard Axle Works, 37 Fed. Rep. 789; Dueber Watch Case Co. v. Dalzel, 38 Fed. Rep. 597.

Turn

Duty to See What Right, etc., Assignor Has Where It Is Not Stated in Assignment. --And where an assignment merely conveys the right, title and interest of the assignor, it does not cut off a previous unrecorded assignment where there is anything on which the subsequent assignment can operate. bull v. Weir Plough Co., 6 Biss. (U. S.) 225; s. c, I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 544; S. C., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 173; Ashcroft v. Walworth, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528; s. c., Holmes (U. S.) 152; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 546; Hamilton v. Kingsbury, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 460; s. c., 4 Fed. Rep. 428; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 157; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 847; Turnbull v. Weir Plough Co., 9 Biss. (U. S.) 334; s. c., 14 Fed. Rep. 108; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 288; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 91.

The assignee takes subject to whatever limitations affect the title of his assignor. Pennington v. Hunt, 20 Fed. Rep. 195.

4. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story (U. S.) 609; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 189; Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539; Hall v. Speer, 6 Pitts. L. J. (Pa.) 403; Olcott v. Hawkins, 2 Am. L. J. 317; Brooks v. Byam, 2 Story (U. S.) 525; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 161; Boyd v. McAlpin, 3 McLean (U. S.) 427; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 277; Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean (U. S.) 526; McKernan v. Hite, 6 Ind. 428; Louden v. Birt, 4 Ind. 566.

It has been held by some circuits and in some State courts that the assignment must be recorded before bringing suit against an infringer. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 273; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23.

5. Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 144; Case v. Redfield, 4 McLean (U. S.) 526; Black v. Stone, 33 Ala. 327; McKernan v. Hite, 6 Ind. 428; Moore v. Bare, 11 lowa 198; Sone v. Palmer,

protection to the assignee and his assignees.1

7. Agency. An agency in relation to patent rights is, as any other agency, revocable, except where coupled with an interest.3 8. Other Contracts Respecting Patent Rights.-Contracts between owners, of patents concerning the manner in which the patent rights of each shall be employed, and the articles to be made under them, and options to purchase within a certain time,5 and other agreements, have been held valid.

28 Mo. 539; Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61; Campbell v. James, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 72; s. c, 2 Fed. Rep. 338; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 354; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. IIII.

1. A bona fide purchaser, whose assignment is duly recorded, will not be affected by any parol contract between the parties to a prior assignment as to what it should cover. Campbell v. James, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 92; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 338; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 354; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz.

IIII.

He is completely protected. Aspinwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Fed. Rep. 697. The record of an instrument not required to be recorded by the statute, will not affect the rights of subsequent assignees, by its recording. Wright v. Randel, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 495; s. c., 8 Fed. Rep. 591; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Rep. 493; New York Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Union Paper Bag Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 783.

Chambers v. Smith, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 12; s. c., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 575.

See LICENSE, vol. 13, p. 514. Nor can a subsequent bona fide assignee, who took title after the lapse of more than three months after the date of a prior assignment be affected by a mutual mistake in a prior conveyance, which mistake cannot be corrected after that time to the disadvantage of the subsequent purchaser. Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 144; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 151.

Racine Seeder Co. v. Joliet Wirecheck Rower Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 367. 2. Burdell v. Denig, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588.

3. Day v. Candee, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 9; Burdell v. Denig, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 588. See ASSIGNORS.

4. Star Salt Castor Co. v. Crossman, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 568; Seibert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. William Powell Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 600.

An agreement of this kind is not binding on a purchaser of a machine

from either party. Pratt v. Marean, 25 Ill. App. 516.

Such a contract does not necessarily give an exclusive license to either party. Seibert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. William Powell Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 600. See Woodworth v. Čook, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 151; McBurney v. Goodyear, II Cush. (Mass.) 569; Howe v. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.) 18.

5. An option to purchase and an agree ment not to sell during the option, does not give a license to manufacture during that time. Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed Wire Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 615.

6. To extend time for payment of royalties. Brush-Swan Electric Light Co. v. Brush Electric Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 163. Or privies. Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed Wire Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 615.

Agreements relating to the exclusive right to manufacture for a patented device. Gally v. Cotts etc. Fire Arms Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 118; Houghton v. Rowley, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 288.

Agreements Giving an Equitable Right. -An assignee of a patent agreed to share the profits with the patentee, his assignor. At the instance of said assignor an extension of the patent was granted. Held, that the assignee had the benefit of the extended term, although his assignor had an equitable interest in it. Sayles v. Dubuque etc. R. Co., 5 Dill. (U. S.) 551.

Sale of Right to Royalties.-A contract may be made selling the right to royalties under a contract. United States v. Burns, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 246.

Equitable Doctrines as Applied to Patent Contracts-Estoppel.-An admission that a third party had power to grant rights under a patent by the true owner will estop him from prosecuting any one who, on account of this admission, has obtained rights for a valuable consideration from such third party. Gear v. Grosvenor, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 215. See supra, this title,

9. Royalty. An agreement to account and pay royalties may form part of the consideration of an assignment without reducing it to a license.1 An acceptance of an assignment makes the assignee liable for any sale under the invention assigned,2 and is an implied agreement to manufacture under the patent. In general the rules governing actions on contracts of assignments govern actions for royalties.4

Estoppel of Defendant to Set Up Certain Defenses.

Resulting Trusts.-One who obtains the legal title of patent with knowledge of an equitable title in another, holds it in trust for the true owner. Whiting v. Graves, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 940; Pontiac Knit Boot Co. v. Merino Shoe Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 286.

1. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 205; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 964.

A contract to pay royalties for the use of an unpatented invention begins, unless otherwise, designated, when the patent issues. Travis v. Minneapolis Sweeper Co., 41 Minn. 176.

2. As a general thing, royalty is due wherever the party manufacturing under it has enjoyed the benefits of the patent. Covell v. Bostwick, 39 Fed. Rep. 421; Jones v. Burnham, 67 Me. 93; National Rubber Co. v. Boston Rubber Shoe Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 48; Rogers v. Reissner, 30 Fed. Rep. 525; Marston v. Sweet, 66 N. Y. 206; Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 526; Hyatt v. Dale Tile Mfg. Co., 106 N. Y. 651; Paper Stock Disinfecting Co. v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 147 Mass. 318; Wilder v. Adams, 16 Gray (Mass.) 478; Wilder v. Stearns, 48 N. Y. 656; Johnson v. Willimantic Co., 33 Conn. 436.

Where an assignee agrees to pay the patentee a certain sum "for each and every one of said machines sold or caused to be sold by him," held that this covered any transfer or settlement by which the right to use a machine passed. Rodgers v. Torrant, 43 Mich. 113.

Where an assignment is made of an invention and a patent to be granted thereon any article made embracing the "invention" will require a royalty. Milligan v. Lalance etc. Mfg. Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 570.

An assignor is entitled to royalty on machines which were sold by one adjudged an infringer of the patent at the suit of the assignee, when the purchasers from the infringer have paid the assignee for the right to use. Por

ter v. Standard Measuring Machine Co., 142 Mass. 191.

Where articles finished or unfinished made under the patent were turned over to the successor of the defendant, this is a sale, and royalty is due. Marsh v. Dodge, 6 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 568; 8. C., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 278.

Where articles substantially the same as those described are made, royalty is due on them. Wilder v. Adams, 16 Gray (Mass.) 478.

Where one properly authorized licensee purchases from another properly authorized licensee, and sells again, only one royalty is collectible. Howe v. Wooldredge, 12 Allen (Mass.) 18.

Cessation of Royalty.-Royalty ceases on termination of contract. Garver v. Bement, 69 Mich. 149.

But where the contractor attempts to put an end to the license which is not acquiesced in by the contractee, the contractee is liable for royalty on articles made after as well as articles made before the notice of termination. Union Mfg. Co. v. Lounsbury, 41 N. Y. 363; Wilde v. Smith, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 196.

Manufacture and shipment are presumptive evidence of sale. Marsh v. Dodge, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 541; Smith v. Standard Laundry Mach. Co., 11 Daly (N. Y.) 154.

An acceptance of royalty is an acceptance of a transfer. Bloomer v. Gilpin, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 50.

A royalty may be recovered on a quantum meruit where an implied contract is made to use a patented invention and pay for the use. Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146.

3. Wilson v. Marlow, 66 Ill. 385.

But not to manufacture to a certain extent unless expressly stipulated. Hornbostel v. Kinney, 110 N. Y. 94; Babcock v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 756. See Washburne etc. Co. v. Southern Wire Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 428.

4. Lack of Consideration.-Lack of novelty in an invention is not a good

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »