United States v. Colgate

Decision Date09 August 1884
Citation21 F. 318
PartiesUNITED STATES v. COLGATE.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Elihu Root, U.S. Atty., Charles M. Da Costa, and Wager Swayne, for orator.

Frederic H. Betts, for defendant.

WHEELER, J.

This suit is brought by direction of the attorney general, to repeal letters patent granting exclusive rights to inventions, and has now been heard on a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain commencement or prosecution of suits for infringement. The patent has expired, and no injunction is asked against assignment of the patent. The right to maintain such a suit is placed upon the same ground as that to repeal a patent for land. U.S. v. Gunning, 18 F. 511. In a suit to vacate a patent for land it would hardly be claimed that the patentee should be restrained from preventing, or prosecuting suits for, trespasses to the land during the pendency of the suit. Such acts would work no injury to the title or property of the United States in question in the suit. The United States deals with the lands as a proprietor, and brings such suits to be restored to its proprietary rights. U.S. v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378; U.S. v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525. Protection of the property would not impair those rights. Infringement of a patent is a trespass upon the exclusive rights granted. The United States, as an owner or proprietor, has no interest in promoting such trespasses; and their prevention, or the prosecution of suits for their commission, cannot be an injury to the United States as a proprietor. If the patent is repealed the suits may fall, or may not; but whether they do or not is a matter entirely between the parties to the suits, and not at all between the United States and either of the parties. No reason for granting the motion appears, and it must therefore be denied.

Motion denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 26, 1887
    ... ... in those cases; to enjoin the Bell Company from asserting any ... right under those patents in any tribunal whatever. This ... cannot be done. Attorney General v. Chemical Works, 2 ... Ban. & A. 298, post, 608; Neilson's Hot-Blast ... Patent, Webst. Pat. Cas. 665; U.S. v. Colgate, 21 F ... The ... attorney general has no power to bring, nor this court any ... power to entertain, a bill to cancel a patent for inventions ... under any circumstances. The attorney general is an officer ... of limited powers; this court is a court of limited ... jurisdiction ... ...
  • United States v. Marifarms, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • July 13, 1972
    ...patentee from bringing infringement suits pending a suit to cancel the patent upon which he proposes to bring them. United States v. Colgate, 21 F. 318 (C. C.S.D.N.Y.1884), app. dis. 127 U.S. 792, 32 L.Ed. 328 (1888). Accordingly, the Court perceives no valid reason to enjoin Marifarms on t......

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