United States v. Gunning

• Citation: 18 F. 511
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GUNNING and others.
• Decision Date: 01 November 1883
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

18 F. 511

UNITED STATES v. GUNNING and others.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

November, 1883

Chas W. Seymour, for Gunning. A. J. Todd, of counsel.

Louis C. Raegener, Special Asst. Atty., for the United States.

WALLACE J.

This bill is filed to vacate letters patent for an invention granted to the defendants, September 26, 1882, upon the ground of fraud and false suggestion, the allegations being that the applicant induced the grant by his statements in his application that he believed himself to be the inventor of the patented subject, and did not know or believe it had been in public use or on sale in the United States for more than two years prior to his application, whereas both of these statements were false to his knowledge. The defendants have demurred, and in support of the demurrer urge that the United States cannot maintain a suit in equity to vacate letters patent for an invention, although the grant was obtained by fraud. It is insisted in their behalf that there is no statutory provision which permits such a suit, and in the absence of statutory authority no such suit can be maintained.

Notwithstanding the expression of opinion of Judge SHEPLEY in Atty. Gen v. Rumford Chemical Works, 2 Bann.& A. 298, in favor of the defendants' position, it is believed there is no sound reason why a bill will not lie in such a case as well as where the subject of the grant is land, or is a franchise or right of a different kind. The learned judge laid much stress upon the consideration that in issuing letters patent for inventions, nothing is granted which belonged before to the United States, and the rights and remedies of the parties to such grants are dependent solely on the statute enactments, and do not grow out of any previous ownership of the subject of the grant; and it was his view that in such a case express authority for proceedings to annul the grant must be conferred, in order to sanction them. The same reasoning would preclude a state from proceedings to annul the charter of a corporation created by its legislature if obtained through fraud. Yet it is a familiar principle that grants of corporate franchises obtained through fraud practiced upon the legislature are void when the state elects to set them aside by a judicial rescission. Mor. Priv. Corp 148. He also refers to the provisions of the patent acts of 1790 and 1793, which authorized proceedings for the repeal of...