Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company

Decision Date19 May 1902
Docket NumberNo. 215,215
Citation22 S.Ct. 747,46 L.Ed. 1058,186 U.S. 70
PartiesE. BEMENT & SONS, Plffs. in Err. , v. NATIONAL HARROW COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of New York, to which court the record had been remitted after a decision of the case by the court of appeals. The action was brought by the plaintiff below, the defendant in error here a corporation, to recover the amount of liquidated damages arising out of an alleged violation by the defendant below, the plaintiff in error here, also a corporation, of certain contracts executed between the parties in relation to the manufacture and sale of what are termed in the contracts 'float spring tooth harrows,' their frames, and attachments applicable thereto, under letters patent owned by the plaintiff. The action was also brought to restrain the future violation of such contracts, and to compel their specific performance by the defendant. The case was tried before a referee pursuant to the statute of New York providing therefor, and he ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for over $20,000, besides enjoining the defendant from violating its contract with the plaintiff, and directing their specific performance as continuing contracts. This judgment was reversed by the appellate division of the supreme court, and an order made granting a new trial, but on appeal from such order the court of appeals reversed it and affirmed the original judgment. The defendant brings the case here by writ of error.

The particular character of the action appears from the pleadings. The complaint, after alleging the incorporation of both parties to the action, the plaintiff in New Jersey and the defendant in Michigan, averred that about April 1, 1891, the plaintiff's assignor, a New York corporation, entered with the defendant into certain license contracts, called therein Exhibits A and B. The substance of contract A is as follows: It stated that the plaintiff was the owner of certain letters patent of the United States, which had been issued to other parties and were then owned by the plaintiff, for improvements relating to float spring tooth harrows, harrow frames, and attachments applicable thereto, eighty-five of which patents were enumerated; and that the defendant desired to acquire the right to use in its business of manufacturing at Lansing, in the state of Michigan, and to sell throughout the United States, under such patents or some one or more of them, and under all other patented rights owned or thereafter acquired by the plaintiff, which applied to and embraced the peculiar construction employed by the defendant, during the term of such patents, or either or any thereof, applicable to and embracing such construction. The plaintiff then, in and by such contract, gave and granted to the defendant the license and privilege of using the rights under those patents in its business of manufacturing, marketing, and vending to others to be used, float spring tooth harrows, float spring tooth harrow frames without teeth, and attachments applicable thereto; a sample of the harrow frames and attachments the defendant was licensed to manufacture and sell, being (as stated) in the possession of the treasurer of the plaintiff, and marked and numbered as set forth in schedule A, which was made a part of the license. The license was granted upon the terms therein set forth, which were as follows:

(1) The defendant was to pay a royalty of $1 for each float spring tooth harrow or frame sold by it pursuant to the license, to be paid to the plaintiff at its office in the city of Utica, in the state of New York.

(2) The defendant was to make verified reports of its business each month and mail them to the plaintiff, and the defendant agreed that it would not ship these harrows to any person, firm, or corporation to be sold on commission, or allow any rebate or reduction from the price or prices fixed in the license, except to settle with an insolvent debtor for harrows previously sold and delivered.

(3) The defendant agreed that it would not during the continuance of the license sell its products manufactured under the license at a less price or on more favorable terms of payment and delivery to the purchasers than was set forth in schedule B, which was made a part of the license, except as thereinafter provided.

(4) The plaintiff reserved the right to decrease the selling price and to make the terms of payment and delivery more favorable to the purchasers, and it might reduce the royalty on the harrows manufactured under the license.

(5) The plaintiff agreed to furnish license labels to the defendant, which were to be affixed to each article sold, and the amount of 10 cents paid for each of such labels was to be credited and allowed on the royalty paid by the defendant at the time of such payment.

(6) The defendant agreed that it would not, during the continuance of the license, be directly or indirectly engaged in the manufacture or sale of any other float spring tooth harrows, etc., than those which it was licensed to manufacture and make under the terms of the license, except such as it might manufacture and furnish another licensee of the National Harrow Company, and then only such constructions thereof as such other licensee should be licensed by the plaintiff to manufacture and sell, except such other style and construction as it might be licensed to manufacture and sell by the plaintiff.

(7) The defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff for each and every of the articles sold contrary to the strict terms and provisions of the license, the sum of $5, which sum was thereby agreed upon and fixed as liquidated damages.

(8) The defendant agreed not to, directly or indirectly, in any way, contest the validity of any patent applicable to and embracing the construction which the defendant was licensed to manufacture, or which it might manufacture for another licensee, which such other licensee was itself licensed to manufacture or sell, or the reissues thereof, and no act of either party should invalidate this admission. The defendant also agreed not to alter or change the construction of the float spring tooth harrows, float spring tooth harrow frames without teeth, or attachments applicable thereto, which it was authorized to manufacture and sell under the license, in any part or portions thereof which embody any of the inventions covered by the letters patent, or any of them, or any reissues thereof.

(9) The plaintiff agreed that after the license was delivered it would not grant licenses, or let to any other person, the right to manufacture the articles named, of the peculiar style and construction or embodying the peculiar features thereof used by the defendant, as illustrated and embodied in the sample harrow then placed in the possession of the treasurer of the plaintiff, and referred to in schedule A of the license.

(10) Nothing contained in the license was to authorize the defendant to manufacture or vend, directly or indirectly, any other or different style of harrow than duplicates of such sam- ples as had been deposited by it with the plaintiff, and such as were embraced in the license.

(11) Any departure from the terms of the license might at the option of the plaintiff be treated as a breach of the license, and the licensee might be treated as an infringer, or the plaintiff might restrain the breach thereof in a suit brought for that purpose and obtain an injunction, the licensee waiving any right of trial by jury; such remedy was to be in addition to the liquidated damages already provided for.

(12) The termination of the license by the plaintiff was not to release the defendant from its obligation to pay for articles sold up to the termination of the license.

(13) The plaintiff agreed to defend the defendant in any suit brought for an alleged infringement.

(14) No royalties were to be paid for articles exported for use in a foreign country.

(15) The license was personal to the licensee, and not assignable, except to the successors of the defendant in the same place and business, without the written consent of the plaintiff, nor were the royalties or other sums specified to cease to be paid under any circumstances, except under the conditions named in the license, during the continuance thereof.

(16) The parties agreed that the license should continue during the term of the patent or patents applicable to the license, and during the term of any reissues thereof.

(17) The place of the performance of the agreement was the city of Utica, New York, and the agreement was to be construed and the rights of the parties thereunder determined according to the laws of New York.

(18) The consideration of the contract or license was $1, paid by each of the parties to the other, and the covenants contained therein to be performed by the other, and it applied to and bound the parties thereto, their successors, heirs, and assigns.

Schedule A, which followed, contained a description of the particular kinds of harrow which the defendant was authorized to make and sell under the license. Schedule B contained a statement of the prices and terms of sale under the license, and it was therein stated that 'a maximum discount of 42 per cent may be allowed on sales of harrows, frames, and teeth in the following territory: All of the New England states, also states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. A maximum discount of 45 per cent may be allowed on all sales in the territory throughout the United States not mentioned above.'

This contract or license was signed by the president of the National Harrow Company for the plaintiff, and A. O. Bement, president of the defendant corporation, for the defendant.

The other license, called Exhibit B, was in substance the same as Exhibit A, excepting that the privilege of sale for the articles manufactured was that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
229 cases
  • Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • April 18, 1983
    ...the plaintiffs or either of them could refuse to grant Roj or Otex licenses under these patents. Cf. E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 22 S.Ct. 747, 46 L.Ed. 1058 (1902) (agreement between patent holder and exclusive licensee that any other requests for licenses will be ......
  • Associated Press v. Taft-Ingalls Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 18, 1965
    ...to be illegal. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Illegality of the contract under the Sherman Act is a valid defense. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 87, 88, 22 S.Ct. 747, 46 L.Ed. 1058. "At an early date it was recognized that, despite the absence of a provision in the Sherman Act authoriz......
  • St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hadley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • March 8, 1909
    ... ... of them except the St. Louis & Hannibal Company having lines ... of railroad both within and without the ... 67, 53 L.Ed ... ; Bement v. National Harrow Co., ... 186 U.S. 70, 83, 22 Sup.Ct ... ...
  • United States v. Line Materials Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1948
    ...price of a patented article would solve problems arising from its adoption. Since 1902, however, when E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 22 S.Ct. 747, 46 L.Ed. 1058, was decided, a patentee has been able to control his licensee's sale price within the limits of the patent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
18 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust Analysis Of Intellectual Property Agreements
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 6, 2015
    ...thus acquire some other which the statute and the patent together did not give.” Id. at 456; see E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 92-93 (1902). 158. 433 U.S. 36 (1977). 159. Id. at 59. 160. 211 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1954). 161. Id. at 125, 128-30. As the court noted, “[i]t......
  • Table Of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook
    • January 1, 2010
    ...U.S. 544 (2007), 156, 165, 167. BellSouth Adver. v. Donnelley Info. Publ’g, 933 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1991), 74. Bement v. Nat’l Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902), 121. Big Seven Music Corp. v. Lennon, 554 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1977), 75. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), 3. Binks Mfg. v.......
  • Vertical Restraints
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries
    • December 5, 2017
    ...or licensee of a patent by the owner thereof, restricting . . . the price to be demanded” (quoting E. Bement & Sons v. Nat’l Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902))). 164 Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries Eight years after Dr. Miles , the Court announced that unilateral price announcem......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries
    • December 5, 2017
    ...(C 155), 117, 276 Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. 220 U.S. 373 (1911), 163 E E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902), 163 E. Food Servs. v. Pontifical Catholic Univ. Servs. Ass’n, 357 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004), 155 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. FTC ( Eth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT