Case ID: f_41/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Butler, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chase v. Cox.
    
    
      (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    
    January 19, 1890.)
    Patents toe Inventions — Inebingement—License—Revocation.
    Where a license contains no power of revocation, a licensor cannot annul the license without the assent oC the licensee, but must proceed at law Cor any broach of the contract. Densmore v. Tanite Co., 33 Pod. Rep. 544, and Pwrijier Go. v. Wolf, 38 Fed. Rep. 814, followed.
    Bill in equity by R. F. M. Chase against Lewis S. Cox, trading as I.ewis S. Cox & Co., for infringement of patent. Said hill alleged a license between the parties, terminated by default of licensee. Defendant filed a plea denying assent to the termination of the license, and denying the termination thereof, or that defendant had ceased to pay royalty, and to conform to the provisions of the license whereby the license was determined. There was in the license no direct reservation of the right to revoke the same. Tho plaintiff had given defendant notice of his intent to revoke.
    
      W. P. Preble, ,fr., for complainants,
    cited Starling v. Plow-Works, 32 Fed. Rep. 290.
    
      Jos. C. Fraley, for respondents,
    cited Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 544; Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814.
    
      
       Reported by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of tbo Philadelphia bar.
    
   Butler, J.,

(after stating the facts as above.) In answer to the infringement charged the defendant pleads a license. The plaintiff admits the execution of a license, but asserts its annulment by mutual agreement, prior to the acts complained of. This assertion presents the only material question raised. We do not find it supported by the proofs. On the contrary, the averments of the bill show quite plainly that the plaintiff supposed he had a right to terminate the license by notice, (for alleged non-compliance with its terms by the defendant,) and that he relied upon this alone for relief from its provisions. This case is governed by Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814, and Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 544. A suit at law upon the license will afford tho plaintiff adequate remedy for any just claim which he may have. A decree must therefore be entered sustaining the plea and dismissing the bill with costs.