The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-12-21

Now sir say nrhsr, that the judgment OF the circuit
court 81 the United oa< ir the northern district OF New
York involving the vtiliyol patent is not conclusive
for or against the paIeat in any other court OF the United
States On the contrary they are courts oil concuIrehi
jurisdiction and the tame patent Is almost daily held TO
Re rood and valid The districts OF Massachusetts which
Z held invalid Ia the districts Of Pennsylvania,
Now as said before .ness the judgment, OF the repeal
o the patent be conclusive all over The United States
nothing az all is gained. do not think this Senate will
Be prepared to make the judgment Of OF the circuit
courts OF the United States conclusive upon the validity
AZ the patent in all the other courts There Is already
mode OF ascertainng the validity OF patent. Under
standing all that has been said upon the subject do
suppose there can ever be better mode NOT do know
that il is necessary there should be better one That is
the common course OF proceedings at common law. An
action is brought BY paisntec. his assignee, in cir
Gull coor, OF the United States. That action is
brought before court and Jury. There is writ OF error
upon the judgment Of that court which, under certain
dons Of law, will bring the question before the Supreme
Court q the United States The Supreme Court Of the
United States make a conclusive ard final judgment
upon the validity OF any patent do not see that we
want anything more
Mr.. DAYTON male remark not heard by the Re
Mr.. SEWARD !, is the authority Of the court upon
the question The evidence being the same, II be-
comes question Of law and the judgment Of the Su
peme Court upon precisely the sci OF facts with re-
gard to the validity Of patent. would be conclusive
Again, in order 10 bring into that shape, the
generally taken is TO file bill in equity upon which the
crcui, court proceeds without jury And when the
same question is involved, rave known OF instance
where patent that has been held upon the examination
United States has not been held valid in all the cir
Gull courts throughout the United STATES. have made
these remarks with reference 10 the proposition Of
facds think II tends to the oppression OF the patentee.
and Of course to the intolerance of justice.
But there sanother feature in the matter which de,
serves consideration, This proceeding by tdcas
may be got up by colluslon patent is valueless but
for the that it be assigned that licenses
be granted for the of it, and the assignments and the
bring 70 the The The
sve right for any district in the United States may bring
this writ Of facas. il he should happen to be prose-
caed ne therefore ; may become an assignee Tor the
the interests Of the patentee or INVENTOR and under
stand the judgment OF that court would be conclusive
show be would have right to do could the proof be
obtained the fact OF collision between the assignee and
mfringer But this fact he would not be able 10 prove
evenfit existed Thus much in relation to thsquestion
| have word or two TO say in regard to the other
features OF this bill, which contemplate vigorous
patent Think that The history Of Jurisprudence in re
gard 10 paten will bear out saying that down until
the year 36. inventors generally failed 10 obtaining
ward for their Inventions, both England and America
and the great reason that they failed was the defect in
their specifications. think that any person who will
take up the volume OF reports 10 patent will find
that tue patenee lost his suit in three out OF four Of all
the actions that brought; and il would be an
interesting study 10 examine the grounds upon which the
yalentee was defeated 1t wond appear that il
from the inability OF the patentee inventor to describe
hs enion within the acquisitions of the statute, 20 as
% not only give an account OF his own machine, or i'm.
ovement invention but also to distinguish il from
every other machine and every other invention that
had been known anywhere earth or among men.
Now the patentee or inventor may be, and often is,
unedacated and II is extraordinary fact that il
TO produce valuable and useful invention in the
than is describe IL when il produced, 20 as 10
separate precisely from every thing that ever known
before, and that the description shall contain every
sental part Of -Dothing more, and nothing less The
failure do this always for defeating the plain
It'd, either at law equity, until the year 1886, when
the Parliament OF Great Britain adopted provision which
authorized paentees to surrender their patents and
areissue, containing other specifications.
any defects and to conform the specification description
OF the patent 10 the requirements OF the law But before
that improvement had taken place in England the
difficulty had been experienced in this country for several
years. And Mr. Justice Thompson, when on the bench
Of the circuit court OF the United States, had come to
the relief OF the patentee by what seems TO have been
extraordinary stretch OF Judicial power. Although the
acts OF Congress- did not provide at all for the surrender
and amendment OF the specification OF the patent Justice
thompson decided that wherever patent was void by
reason OF detective specification il The right OF the
paeniee to surrender his patent int the Patent Office and
take out new patent with amended specifications This
question went from the circuit court Of the United
States to the Sopreme Court and The decision OF r jus.
tee Thompson was approved and confirmed. Congress
lss6 adopted that principle, and it stands part
reason OF the failure OF justice before il adopted.
ID is indspensably necessary have knowledge
and no belief that u is randulenty exercised, that
10 oppressivey exercised do not that any further
remedy against abuse OF il is necessary, because the
courts Of law all competent to determine wheth-
the patent has been ressued frauduleny or whether
has been Tessned correctly rightly, and Justly. II it
has been sssued for the thing and for nothing else
and only amended IN point where the description was
dehent then the amended patent hed valid by course
Of law. there has been anything especial incorporated
10 the description which not invented originally by
the aientee before his suing Out his original patent then
The amended patent is fraudulent and void do not know
what more on that subject be done what more
necessary 10 be done In short sir, il TO me- with
he greatest desire on every occasion 10 perfect the patent
tors, but also protection for the citizens against oppres
sion by patenteesit TO that the general SCOPE
and tendency OF this bill 10 10 hinder and affect the adj
mnis,ration Of justice and therefore IL that shall be
obliged to vote against The proposition OF the senator
iron Tennessee. while look forward with hope and
from MISSISSIPPI, lMr DAVIS
Mr. TURNEY. cannot and will not complain OF
the course this discussion seems 10 take Upon this in.
edena question the whole merits OF the question have
been deba ed. shall not. however. remarked be-
lore. follow the example of senator's propose speak
upon The amendment only When substitute shall be
offered to the bill, then the whole argument OF the merits
Of the bill and the merits Of the substitute will be open to
discussions and will have their due weight when senators
are called upon TO vote At present have offered an
amendment TO perfect the bill under consideration in or
dthat II may come in fair competition with the subs-
taie hereafter 10 be offered shall the time
The Senate BY travelling all the merits Of the bill
he BILL no person can apply for ae,as except the
erson who has been sued Tor infringement Of the patent
The amendment s TO give power 10 the court 10 stay the
Foceedings OF the suit until the general validity OF the
PATENT canbe tired by the sre fsc,as That s the only
question submitted by the amendment under consiu.
sraion How that involves all the minute Of the argu.
mens urged agains, IL wholly incapable OF compre
heDdn0 hou pnatex will act A,