Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Every patent issued under the laws of the United States for an invention or discovery contains ‘a grant to the patentee, his heirs and assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use and vend the invention or discovery throughout the United States and the territories thereof.’ * * The monopoly thus granted is one ■entire thing, and cannot be divided into parts, except as authorized by those laws. The patentee or his assigns may, by instrument in writing, assign, grant, and convey, either, (1) the whole patent, comprising the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States; or (2) an undivided part or share of that exclusive right; or (3) the exclusive right under the patent within and throughout a specified part of the United States. * * * A transfer of either of these three kinds of interests is an assignment, properly speaking, and vests in the assignee a title in so much of the patent itself, with a right to sue infringers. In the second case, jointly with the assignor. In the first and third cases, in the name of the assignee alone. Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. * * * In equity, as at law, when the transfer amounts to a license only, the title remains in the owner of the patent; and suit must be brought in his name * *. Any rights of the licensee must be enforced”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holliday v. Long Manufacturing Co.

2. ““a grant to the patentee, his heirs and assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery throughout the United States * * *. The patentee or his assign’s may *' * * assign * * * the exclusive right under the patent within and throughout a specified part of the United States. * * * A transfer of * * * these * * * interests is an assignment, properly speaking, and vests in the assignee a title in so much of the patent itself, with a right to sue infringers * * * in the name of the assignee alone. Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. * * * Whether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license does riot depend upon the name by which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its provisions. For instance, a grant of an exclusive right to make, use, and vend two patented machines' within a certain district is an assignment, and gives the grantee the right to sue in his own name for an infringement within the district, because the right, although limited, to making, using, and vending two machines, excludes all other persons, even .the patentee, from making, using, or vending like machines within the district.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. Supp. 139 - United Lacquer Mfg. Corp. v. Maas & Waldstein Co.

3. ““What purports to be an assignment may be a license only, and the court will examine the ‘license’ or ‘assignment’ to determine the legal effect of the transfer agreement.” Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, 187 F.2d 52, 57 (3rd Cir. 1951). See Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co., 144 U.S. 248, 250-251 , 12 S.Ct. 641 , 36 L.Ed. 423 (1892). “Ordinarily, a mere licensee of a patent has no right to sue an infringer, and the patent owner is under no duty to do so. An exclusive licensee obviously is in a different situation. One charged with infringement or one charging infringement would ordinarily have the right to bring the owner into the action to prevent another suit on the same alleged wrong.” Hook, supra, 187 F.2d at 58-59 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dynatech Corp. v. Frigitronics, Inc.