702 



PATENTS. 



new invention and defensible under patent law, 

 notwithstanding the established and common 

 practice of filling pipes of this kind with a simi- 

 lar cement from within. 



April, 1891. United States Supreme Court, 

 opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Gray, Water- 

 man vs. MacKenzie et al. Definition of an assign- 

 ment in patent law is a writing conveying either 

 (1) the old patent covering all rights in the 

 United States, or (2) an undivided share in that 

 right, or (8) the exclusive right in some specific 

 part of the United States. Such instrument 

 vests in the assignee a title in so much of the 

 title itself, with the right to sue infringers alone 

 in first and third cases, and jointly with the as- 

 signor in second case. Any other transfer is 

 mere license, conveying no title or right to sue 

 for infringement. A grant by owner of patent 

 of the right to manufacture and sell does not in- 

 clude the right to use the patent if manufact- 

 ured by third persons, and is therefore a mere 

 license! The record of a mortgage in the Patent 

 Office perfects the title of mortgagee toward all 

 other persons as well as against the mortgageor, 

 and the mortgagee is the only person who can 

 therefore sue for infringement. 



One of the most notable cases tried was that 

 of the Edison Electric Light Company vs. the 

 United States Electric Light Company (the 

 Westinghouse Company). The opinion was de- 

 livered by Judge Wallace. The hearing lasted 

 eight days. The patent in question was No. 

 223,898, for an incandescent electric lamp. As 

 printed, the testimony fills nearly 6,000 pages. 

 It took the lawyers nearly two years to prepare 

 the case, and the opposing briefs together filled 

 about 1,000 pages. Judge Wallace's opinion 

 made another respectable volume, containing 

 about 10,000 words. It sustains the patent as 

 issued, and orders the decree of injunction 

 against the defendants. The invention was made 

 in 1879, patented in 1880, infringement discov- 

 ered and suit begun in 1885. The two claims in 

 litigation were (1) a carbon filament secured to 

 metal wires, as set forth ; (2) the combination 

 of carbon filaments with a glass receiver from 

 which the" air is exhausted, as set forth. The 

 decision set aside the first claim as not infringed 

 upon, but sustained the second claim as a " high- 

 ly meritorious discovery and invention, whereby 

 a lamp was made which was practically opera- 

 tive and successful, the embryo of the best lamps 

 now in commercial use, and but for which the 

 subdivision of the electric current by incandes- 

 cence would still be nothing but the ignis- fatuus 

 which it was pronounced to be in 1879 by some 

 of the learned experts who are now striving to 

 belittle his (Edison's) achievement and show that 

 it did not rise to the dignity of an invention." 



Great Britain. In January, 1890, the Eng- 

 lish Court of Queen's Bench, Mr. Justice Day 

 presiding, tried a case that will no doubt be 

 cited as an important precedent. In one of the 

 lower courts, from which the case was appealed, 

 the jury found, upon two issues, substantially 

 that the trade-mark as used by the defendant 

 was in effect an imitation of the plaintiff's trade- 

 mark, and that the defendant had wrongfully 

 or voluntarily disposed of goods that were not 

 really the goods represented by the trade-mark. 

 From that judgment the defendant appealed, 



holding that the plaintiff's trade-mark had been 

 improperly registered. The case was compli- 

 cated by the fact that the deeds were drawn in 

 Spanish and executed in Mexico, so that, while 

 there was no question as to their regularity, 

 much difficulty was experienced in reaching an 

 intelligent conclusion. It was held eventually, 

 however, that the deeds conveyed no good-will, 

 but only an independent right to the use of the 

 trade-mark in question. It followed, therefore, 

 that the registration was irregular and void, and 

 the plaintiff not entitled to maintain an action 

 on which he had recovered judgment. Judg- 

 ment was accordingly reversed and entered for 

 the defendant, but without costs. In effect, the 

 rule has been laid down that a trade-mark may 

 not go beyond the trade to which it belongs. 

 That this is essential in the interest of the 

 owner of the trade-mark is perfectly obvious, 

 since it is very important that the public should 

 recognize the mark as designating certain special 

 goods, and because it is to the interest of the 

 purchaser to be able, by means of the mark, cer- 

 tainly to identify the article he is purchasing. 

 If the owner of a trade-mark were free to sell 

 his mark, while retaining his trade, it is evident 

 that the public would run the risk of being 

 deceived in regard to the goods covered by a 

 well-known mark. 



Germany. In October, 1891, in Germany, an 

 amendment to the law of 1877 went into effect. 

 The principal change that is of interest to Ameri- 

 cans is that patents taken out in foreign coun- 

 tries act in anticipation of the invention only 

 after a lapse of three months, thus permitting 

 extended time for application in Germany. If 

 an invention is still in preparation, the real in- 

 ventor may prevent the issue of the patent. 

 Pees may be paid for the whole time in advance. 

 Fees will be returned if the patent is annulled. 

 Application for annulment can not be made 

 after five years. Fees are not lowered, but may 

 be by the Federal council without special legis- 

 lation. A patent may be revoked if due diligence 

 is not used to introduce it. Damages for in- 

 infringement are increased. The new patent of- 

 fice was established in Berlin in April. 



Mexico. A new patent law was passed in 

 Mexico in 1890. Under its provisions any per- 

 son, native or foreign, may obtain a patent for 

 twenty years, with the privilege of extending it 

 for five years. The office fees are from $50 to 

 $150. No official guarantee is given regarding 

 novelty or sufficiency of specifications. Patents 

 are given for articles already patented in foreign 

 countries, but the Mexican patent expires with 

 the expiration of the foreign patent. Supple- 

 mentary applications for improvements may be 

 filed within one year. The Government may 

 appropriate any patent on payment of a fair in- 

 demnity. When application is filed, the patent 

 is published for two months in the ''Official Ga- 

 zette," to allow for interference proceedings, if 

 there is reason for any such. All previous pat- 

 ent laws are repealed. 



Swindling 1 Agents. An easy and profitable 

 method of swindling on the part of unprincipled 

 agents has of late assumed considerable propor- 

 tions. In the Patent-office " Gazette," published 

 weekly by the department, are hundi'eds of 

 names of inventors and illustrated accounts of 



