(Oircuit Oourt, B. D. New York. November 9, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-AsSIGNMENT-RIGHT TO SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT.
Where it is apparent from the terms of the assignment that the intention of the patentee is to transfer thereby all his rights under the patent, the whole legal -tItle 1S in the assignee, and he may sue for infringement in his own name; the fact that the transfer took the form of an assignment, rather than that of a license, in order that the transferee might sue in his own name, is immaterial. Followiug' Siebert 00. v. Phillips 00., 10 Fed. Rep. 677. The force of a decision of the circuit court construing an instrument assigning a patent is not to be done away with on the ground that the suit in which the decision was rendered was a collusive one, where the only proof to' collusion iean affidavit on information and belief, in which no further sources of info,rmation or grounds of are set forth than a clipping from a distant ne.wsI?aper. _
2. JUDGMENT-EFFEOT OF
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ASSIGNMENT-CONSTRUCTION.
Siebert Od. v. Phillips 00., 10 Fed. Rep. 677, construing the assignment of letters patent No. 188,243, issued to John Gates for improvements in lubricators for steam-engines, is not overruled by Willon v. Okickering, 14 Fed. Rep. 917. .
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Wetmore & Jenner, for complaipant. ' Wells W. Leggett, for defendant.
LACOMBE,J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction t() restrain the defendant from inftinging letters patent No. 138,243, issued to John, Gates for certain improvements in lubricators for steam-engines. It is opposed solely on the ground that complainant has no such right and title as will authorize him to sue in his own name. The patent has been adjudicated upon, and the very question now raised answered in Siebert 00. v.Phillips Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 677. In that case Judge LowELL, construing the evidence of plaintiff's title, uses this language: "The assignmEmt to the plaintifl' was made an assignment, rather than a license, in order that they mIghtsue in their own nalIles-so the contracts recite; but there is no legl\l objection to this: the motive is hot material, and, the whole legal title. being in the plaintiffs, tbey may maintain suit without joining the patentee." _This decisjon; based on the same facts as those here presented, should ordinarily be controlling. Defendant, however, seeks to avoid that re- sult by contending-Hrst. that the former suit was a collusive one; and, second, that the instruments were not carefully considered,' and that the learned judge was in error as to their effect. as is indicated in a later decision of his in Wilson v. Chickering, 14 Fed. Rep. 917. The first contention is wholly unsupported by proof. The only affidavit submitted is one on information and belief, in which the affiant sets forth neither the sources of his information nor the grounds of his belief, except by affixing to his affidavit a clipping from a western newspaper. It need not, therefore, be considered.
THOMPSON V. SMITH & GRIGGS MANUF'G CO.
There is in the later decision of Judge inconsistent with the views expressed by him in the case reported in 10 Fed. Rep. In Wilson v. Chickering, the patentee" licensed and empowered plaintiff to manufacture for the term of ten years, * * * and to sell the same; but in case of plaintiff's bankruptcy, the license shall end." In the present suit, the conveyance under which plaintiff claims title, so far as the granting part is concerned, is in the following words: "The party of the first part has sold, assigned, and transferred, and by these presents does sell, assign, and transfer, to the party of the second part, all his right, title, and interest in and to the said improvements as secured to him by letters patent aforesaid. for, to, and in all parts of the United States .and territories lying east of the Rocky Mountains; ... ... ... the same to be held and enjoyed by the said party of the second part within and throughout the above-sllecified territory, but not elsewhere, for his own use and behoof, to the end of the term for which said letters patent were granted." The interpretation of patent conveyances, like that of all otherwritten instruments, is to be according to the intent of the parties as evidenced by the words used. No particular form is required, although there must be some operative words expressing at least an intent to assign in order 1;0 constitute an assignment. Campbell v. Ja'rM8, 18 Blatchf. 107; 2 Fed. Rep. 338. It seems clear from an examination of the facts in the two cases before Judge LoWELL that in the piano case the intention was to reserve to the grantor everything except the right to manufacture and sell lora term of ,10 years, while, in the oil-cup case the grantor intended to transfer all that he had, except, perhaps, ,the right to an extension. There J'jeems no reason, why the decision of Judge LoWELL construing the very instrurnents now before the court should not be followed on this application for a;'prelimiuary injunction, and theplaintiff's motion is therefore granted. ,
und another v.
Co. and others.
«(Jircuit Court, D. Connecticut.
PATENTS FOR Il!tVENTIONs-NOVELTY-CI,ASPS.
The plaintiff claimed under letters patent No. 826,357, issued to Jacob J. UnbeheAd, for a clasp. "a flexible tongue support consisting of two plates superimposed one upon the other. and connected together by a metallic band embracing the said plates at one end thereof." Also, "in a clasp, a flexible tongue support of two plates provided wHh corresponding slots. and a metallic band passmg through the said slots and embracing the rear end portions" of the pl ates to tie the same together. .. Held, that the band de· scribed in these claims is not a patentable noveltv.
Plaintiff claims under letters patent No. 326.357, granted September 15. 1885, to JacobJ. Unbehend, for a clasp or buckle especil1llY adapted to arctic over-shoes. Tpe plain$iff's device is a buckle in which the tongue is hung in other, with on recesses between two plates, one superimposed on each side of the recesses, to prevent lateral motion. and to retain the hinge-