Dunham v. Bent
| Decision Date | 08 September 1885 |
| Docket Number | 2,042. |
| Citation | 72 F. 60 |
| Parties | DUNHAM v. BENT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Charles H. Drew, Charles F. Perkins, and P. E. Tucker, for complainant.
George L. Roberts & Bro., for defendants.
This is a bill in equity, brought to restrain the defendants from infringing two letters patent for improvements in machines for nailing the soles of boots and shoes, granted to Henry Dunham, August 18, 1874, and November 14, 1876, and numbered respectively, 154,129 and 184,281. The bill sets forth two leases from Dunham to the defendants. These leases covered certain designated machines, and limited the rights of the defendants to the use of the particular machines. In the leases we find the following provision:
'The said lessee hereby agrees that he will not in any way contest the validity of any of the patents he is hereby licensed to use, or the sufficiency of their specification or the validity of the title of the lessor or of his successors, legal representatives, or assigns to said patents.'
The present suit is brought for infringement of the patents by the use of machines not covered by the licenses. The defendants have demurred to the bill on several grounds. It is contended that the bill is multifarious, in that it seeks relief against the defendants as infringers, and also upon certain contracts. Primarily, this suit is for an infringement of patent rights. It sets out the contract in order to show that the defendants have bound themselves not to contest the validity of the patents, and that, therefore they are estopped from setting up this one defense to the action. It cannot be said that this is such a joinder of distinct and independent matters as to render the bill multifarious.
Another ground of demurrer is that this court has no jurisdiction, both parties being citizens of Massachusetts, because the suit is brought upon a contract, and not under the patent laws of the United States. But, in our view, this suit is not brought upon the leases. They covered only certain designated machines, and not those in controversy. In respect to the machines in suit, the defendants do not occupy the position of licensees. This case, therefore, does not come within the decision in Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U.S. 547, and other like cases. We think the court has jurisdiction.
Another ground of demurrer is that the provisions in the leases wherein the defendants agree not to contest the validity of the patents concern only the specific machines which the defendants were licensed to use, and do not concern the machines complained of. In our opinion, neither of the several provisions in the leases, taken together, nor the specific provision already cited, will warrant such a construction. In the absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream Co.
...Ohio Railroad Co. (C. C. A.) 229 F. 141; Miami Cycle Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A.) 245 F. 556; Kohn v. Eimer (C. C. A.) 265 F. 900; Dunham v. Bent (C. C.) 72 F. 60; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. (78 U. S.) 488, 20 L. Ed. 209; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., Fed. Cas. No. 8,949; Finley R......
-
Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
... ... 628, 635, 12 Sup.Ct. 768, 36 L.Ed. 569; ... Picture Talking Machine Co. v. The Fair, 123 F. 424, ... 425, 61 C.C.A. 58 (C.C.A. 7th Cir.); Dunham v. Bent ... (C.C.) 72 F. 60, 61; Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup Co. v ... Manning (C.C.) 32 F. 625, 626. It is scarcely necessary ... to say that such ... ...
-
Standard Register Co. v. American Sales Book Co., Equity No. 2078
...United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Caunt, C.C., 134 F. 239; Philadelphia Creamery Supply Co. v. Davis & Rankin, etc., C.C., 77 F. 879; Dunham v. Bent, C.C., 72 F. 60. The only doubt that would seem to arise as respects the validity of this portion of the agreement is the provision with respect to......
-
Good Humor Corporation v. Bluebird Ice Cream & CR
...is, in the circumstances, estopped from denying the validity of these patents. Certainly the cases cited by the plaintiff, Dunham v. Bent et al. (C. C.) 72 F. 60, Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co. (C. C.) 116 F. 629, 638, and Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream......