United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Caunt
| Decision Date | 26 December 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,939. |
| Citation | 134 F. 239 |
| Parties | UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. v. CAUNT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Benjamin Phillips and Elmer P. Howe, for complainant.
T. Hart Anderson, for defendant.
Complainant brought a bill in equity to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 461,793, granted October 20, 1891. The bill alleged a covenant of the defendant, dated January 2 1902, admitting the validity of the patent. The covenant in question (contained in a lease for the term of 17 years which may be referred to by agreement of counsel) is as follows:
The defendant answered, setting up a British patent dated September 17, 1888, 'for said alleged improvements set forth and claimed in said letters patent No. 461,793. ' The complainant excepted to the allegation in the defendant's answer above referred to as impertinent, and prayed that it be expunged. The case was thereupon referred to a master, who carefully considered the question presented for decision, and found that the portion of the answer objected to was not in violation of the defendant's covenant. The complainant duly excepted to the master's report.
Rev. St. Sec. 4887 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382), reads in part as follows:
'Every patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country shall be so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent; * * * and in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years.'
The sole question thus presented to the court is this: Did the defendant covenant that he would not contest the valid duration of letters patent No. 461,793 for the full term of 17 years expressed therein, or was his covenant binding only for the term as limited by the prior English patent? That expired 14 years from its date. There was much discussion by counsel, both before the master and at the bar, whether section 4887 should be construed as forfeiting a part of the term otherwise granted by the patent, or as a limitation implied in the grant itself. Cases were referred to in support of one construction or the other of the statute. See Brush Electric Co. v. Julien Electric Co. (C.C.) 41 F. 679; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Accumulator Co. (C.C.) 47...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream Co.
...Water-Tube Boiler Co. (C. C.) 84 F. 346; Chicago & Alton Ry. Co. v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (C. C. A.) 243 F. 883; United Machinery Co. v. Caunt (C. C.) 134 F. 239; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co. (D. C.) 284 F. 177; Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. McGill (C. C. A.) 108 F. 238;......
-
Standard Register Co. v. American Sales Book Co., Equity No. 2078
...Eskimo Pie Corp. v. National Ice Cream Co. 6 Cir., 26 F.2d 901; United States v. Wayne Pump Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. 949; 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 do......
-
United States v. Wayne Pump Co.
...that licensees recognize the validity of the patent beyond the termination of the license are valid agreements. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Caunt, C.C., 134 F. 239; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. National Ice Cream Co., D.C., 20 F.2d 1003; Id., 6 Cir., 26 F.2d 901. If any unlawful means were used in ......
-
4-One Box Mach. Makers v. Wirebounds Patents Co.
...contested the validity of one or more of these patents the defendants are not relieved from their obligations." In United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Caunt (C. C.) 134 F. 239, 240, there was a lease of a patented machine with a license to use the patent right. This was to run for seventeen years,......