ANDREW P. SIMPSON, JOSEPH FORSYTH, AND BAGDAD MILLS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES G. WILSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court resolved a patent dispute involving the Woodworth planing machine by deciding that an assignee granted exclusive rights to use and sell a patented machine within a specific territory may nonetheless sell the products manufactured by that machine outside the territory, as the territorial restriction applies only to the use of the machine itself, not to the sale of its output. The Court held that patent extensions and renewals do not benefit parties with prior interests in the patent beyond their original scope, though existing users retain the right to continue using machines at the time the extension takes effect.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
The'questions in this case come up on the certificate of a division of opinion in the court below. The judgment of this court' in the previous case'of Wilson, a. Rousseau et al., upon the second question certified in that case, disposes of the first question certified here-, and is answered accordingly.
The second question certified involves the point, whether or not the assignment of -an exclusive right to make and use, and to vend to others, planing-maphines-, within.a given territory only, authorizes the assignee to vend elsewhere, out of the said territory, the plank, boards, and other materials, the product-of said machines.
_. The court have no doubt but that it does ; and that the restriction in the assignment is to be construed as applying solely to the using of the machine. There is no restriction, as to place, of the gale of the produpt. Certificate accordingly to court below.
Order. This cause came on tQ be heard, on. the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the-United States for the District of Louisiana, and on the points and questions ón which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and which.were certified to this court for its opinion.agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided,, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, —
1. That, bylaw, the extension and renewal of the said patent granted to William Woodworth,. and. obtained by William'W. Woodworth, his executor, did. not inuré to the benefit of . said defendant to the extent that said defendant was interested in said patent before such renewal and extension,; but the law saved to persons in the use of machines at the time the extension takes effect the right to continue the use.
2. That an assignment of an exclusive right to use amachine, and to vend the same to others for use, within a specified territory, does, authorize an assignee to vend elsewhere, out of the said territory, plank, boards, and other materials, the product of such machine.
It is therefore now here ordered and decreed by this court, that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co. (NO. 2), 213 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1909)…n the meaning of the words “ repair” and “ replacement.” That they both meant restoration of worn-out parts. This distinction was recognized in Wilson v. Simpson, supra, where it is said that the language of the court in Wilson’s and Roussan’s Case, 4 How. 709, did not permit the assignee of a patent to make other, machines or reconstruct them in gross upon the frame of machines which the assignee had in use, “but it does comprehend and permit the resupply of the effective ultimate tool of the invention,…
-
Wilson v. Simpson, 9 How. 109 (U.S. 1850)…the frames of their old machines, or, supplied an essential constituent part of it, to continue in use those machines which this court said they had a right to use as assignees, when this case was before it, upon certified points, in the year 1846. 4 How. 709, 711. There is no proof of either the first or second specification. But the questions which were argued by counsel, — when repairs destroy identity and encroach upon invention, or when the thing patented, ceases to exist, so as to exclude the rep…
-
Tights, Inc. v. The Honorable Edwin M. Stanley, 441 F.2d 336 (4th Cir. 1971)…19, 3 Stat. 481. Apparently injunctions had been granted by federal courts prior to 1819 in several diversity cases involving patents. See Root v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 189, 192, 26 L.Ed. 975 (1881). . See Simpson v. Wilson, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 709, 11 L.Ed. 1169 (1846); Wilson v. Turner, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 712, 11 L.Ed. 1171 (1846); Woodworth v. Wilson, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 712, 11 L.Ed. 1171 (1846). . See McClurg v. Kingsland, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 202, 11 L.Ed. 102 (1843); Prouty and Mears v. Draper, Ruggles, 41 U.…