Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. City of Brooklyn
| Decision Date | 15 November 1882 |
| Citation | 14 F. 255 |
| Parties | GAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM TELEGRAPH CO. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
B. S Clark, for complainant.
John A Taylor, corporation counsel, (with whom was Geo. Gifford,) for the city of Brooklyn.
The complainant, by mesne transfers, is vested with the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the patented invention 'for the following purposes and no others; that is to say, for the purpose of constructing and operating telegraph wires and instruments within the corporate limits of any of the incorporated cities or villages, or other incorporated municipalities analogous to cities and villages, in any of the states and territories of the United States, when said telegraph lines and instruments are used solely by the municipal authorities for fire-alarms or the transmission of police or other municipal intelligence. ' It appears by the bill that the Western Union Telegraph Company is the owner of all the right and interest in the letters patent which did not pass to the complainant.
The bill is demurred to upon the ground that the Western Union Telegraph Company is not made a party to the suit. The rule is unquestionably that where one person has the legal title to the patent, and another an equitable right therein, both must be made parties to the suit in an action in equity to restrain infringement. The legal title to a patent is that and only that, recognized by the laws of congress which make the monopoly property, and regulate the mode of its transfer.
The statutory power of assignment, as is said in Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205, 219, 'has been so construed by the courts as to confine it to the transfer of an entire patent, an undivided part thereof, or the entire interest of the patentee or an undivided part thereof throughout a certain specified portion of the United States. ' In that case there was in one instrument a conveyance of the entire patent, and there was also an instrument, executed concurrently, called a supplementary agreement, which contained a reservation of the right of the patentee to apply the invention himself to certain specified purposes. The two instruments were construed as a conveyance of the title to the patent, with a license back from the assignees to the patentee, and upon this construction the assignees were held as vested with the legal title. From the reasoning of the opinion it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Line Materials Co
...a restricted use is an old one, see Providence Rubber Company v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 799, 800, 19 L.Ed. 566; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, C.C., 14 F. 255. So far as appears, its legality has never been questioned.' General Talking Pictures Corporation v. Western Electri......
-
Pioneer Hi-Bred Intern. v. Ottawa Plant Food, Inc.
...use is an old one, see Rubber Company v. Goodyear [76 U.S.] (9 Wall.) 788, 799, 800 [19 L.Ed. 566 (1870)]; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 F. 255 (C.C.N.Y.1882)]. So far as it appears, its legality has never been 305 U.S. at 127, 59 S.Ct. at 117, 83 L.Ed. 81, 39 USPQ at 33......
-
Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of America
...for a restrictive use is an old one, see Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 799, 800, 19 L.Ed. 566; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. City of Brooklyn, C.C., 14 F. 255. So far as appears, its legality has never been In Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, supra 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. ......
-
General Talking Pictures Corporation v. Western Electric Company
...limited to use in a defined field. Providence Rubber Company v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 799, 800, 19 L.Ed. 566; Game-wall Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, C.C., 14 F. 255; Dorsey Rake Co. v. Bradley Co., 7 Fed.Cas. pp. 946, 947, No. 4,015; Robinson on Patents, §§ 808, 824. Unquestionabl......