Case ID: misc_25/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beekman, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The McLean Air Pump & Machine Co., Respondent, v. William K. Peters et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    January, 1899.)
    Patents — Seasonable condition as to royalty.
    An agreement, that the payment of a minimum royalty upon a patented article shall be conditioned upon its manufacture and sale by the licensees after the patent has been issued, is reasonable, as the granting of the patent increases its commercial value and justifies expectations of a larger return.
    Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, first district.
    Edward Goldschmidt, for appellants.
    Everett D. Barlow, for respondent.
   Beekman, P. J.

We think that the plain meaning of the written agreement upon which suit is brought is that the payment of the minimum royalty of $25 a month was not to commence until the patent had been actually issued. Prior to that time the defendants were bound to pay only a percentage upon sales actually made. The agreement with respect to the payment of the minimum royalty, as it is called, is in terms conditioned upon the manufacture and sale by the defendants of the patented article after the issuing of the patent. Nor is there any occasion for an effort to put any other construction upon the instrument, as the stipulation in question was a reasonable one, inasmuch as the granting of the patent tended to increase the commercial value of the invention, and, therefore, a larger measure of return from it might legitimately he expected. The court below, therefore, erred in holding that such minimum royalties were payable from the date of the contract between the parties.

The judgment in favor of the plaintiff must, therefore, he reversed. ! ! I

Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.