The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-15


patent renewed extended 10 administrator is The
il originally granted Tor twenty-one years. Ihe
administrator present to the Commissioner account
of the profit aud loss of that patent Not the inventor
who passes this interest away. The assignment in law
and the assignment in fact disng Unstable as q
deed and will.
now return to the actual assignment of the inyen.
ton. The FIRST phrase is in these words "Whereas
Goodyear has purchased, &c, all right have may
have 10 and 10 said consequence of the grant
OF letters patent; therefore, &c This is the recatiye part
OF me contract and he ectes all the right he has in the
SAID invention In OF that grant The phrase
is little obscure when fully considered The letters
patent by that instrument were 10 be issued TO Mr.
Goodyear, and MIR Hayward could have no interest in
Tins must be construed by the granting part the Ian
gage OF which is this ''the full and exclusive right to
all IMPROVEMENTS made by me, fully described and
set forth in the specification" &c. &c. He does say
there, for the term OF the letters patent to be issued He
aludes TO the letters patent only for description OF the
invention he conveys, not to limit the conveyance 10
me term OF the palent Now, the learned gentleman
who has addressed the Commissioner for the applicants
says that the language OF the conveyance is the same as
that used In the conveyance OF Woodwork TO Strong,
found in Wilson and Rousseau. The question in Viii
and Rousseau did not turn upon that assignment Ii
assignment OF but half the invention, and under
il Woodwork would have right to ask an extension.
That is the first answer to that suggestion In the next
place. am strongly OF the impression that Mr. Strong,
before the death OF Mr. Woodwork reasslgned 10 him
that same half patent The evidence Is in the Patent
Office if il But il enough say that there
NAMED in Woodwork the right to take extension.
The granting part OF the contract in this audes to
the letters patent for description, like illusions one
sensible and proper for the holder Of second mortgage
TO claim that his mortgage covered not only all debts
contained in the second mortgage, but all the debts
cured IN the first mortgage as Tor this party to say that
the phrase specification here alludes TO the term Tor
which the patent was to be granted rather than 10 the
invention II is the description of the property conveyed
and no, the terms for which it is to be held;
! must pass from an examination OF these deeds OF
Goodyear and Hayward with this single remark, that il
will be found that Hayward has conveyed has
received in terms from Goodyear under this deed OF
conveyance licenses 10 manufacture Tor the extended
terms that Goodyear has by many deeds OF assignment
conveyed to different parties lice under the samelhe
application OF which s rs that the parties understood
and now understand, that this assignment OF the
whole invention; secondly, that Goodyear and Hayward
have no right by an agreement OF their own to TO-
geher before the Patent Office 10 ask extension in the
name OF Goodyear for the benefit OF Hayward and cut of
the licenses | say Mr. Hayward took such license in
the case Of the assignment from Goodyear to Hayward and
Burr, and to the Hayward Rubber Company" OF which
Mr. Hayward was member.
l now come TO the TORN of application adopted here
have heretofore touched upon the prayer as being erro
neous; and as am 10 pass hastily over ii. leave tina,
part without remark. Secondly, the accounts should
show the of bringing this invention into use. and the
purchase money received in the sale to Goodyear by Hay
ward is not that cost refer TO the case OF Wilson u.s..
Rousseau The court say that in the granting OF the exen
the regard must be paid to the OF its introduction
into public That should be made and
10 by the paientee and the account itself is important
Commissioner. Suppose he says don't charge any,
thing Tor introducing II 10 the public
MIR Hodges. But should we not have return OF amount
received from the public Are not entitled TO that
AS | understand the law,
The counsel here went into minute examination of
the receipts and expenditures, showing that in eay
Hayward had only expended two or three hundred dol
lars at the most in making and perfecting the invention
while he had originally received IRON Goodyear accord
ing 10 his statement in the petition, three thousand
dollars ahd besides 'na'' over one hundred thousand do
lars by reason OF licenses releases, and reserved right,
under his invention.
now come, may please your honor to an inquiry
into another branch of this branch which the
parties applicant contened 10 leave untouched
contened should pass before your honor upon the bare
authority OF the decision Of The courts IN New Jersey
concusyey argued here by my associate, for pre-
sumo 10 dwell al length upon It will only present
from different stand point IL seems To be singular
that before court, sitting under the law 10 try and de
ciie independently queslionsof fda. responsible and in
tellgen parties, presenting question involving mil
lion OF dollars should be for moment willing 10 rely
upon decision between different parties involving for
the most part only questions OF fact yet subject to APP
peal and which decision bears upon its face the elements
and evidence OF questionable consistency and doubtful
validity. In every stage of this hearing, in introducing
evidence, IN argument and in interocutoy proceeding
that case has been held up 10 impossible bar
ner-as Medusa's head. turning all opposition to mute
and motioness marble The gentleman seemed to be,
eve that the OF the New Jersey district would
be clothed with untold for the opposltion-tba
we should approach it with trembling, and recognise IN
ITS irowning denunciatons "tbe Cog and Msgog Of
4
am unable to discern any cause for anxiety or alarm.
The relation OF that decision TO this issue is remote
and the improperly OF s introduction here obvious
that should pass in silence, did not think due
spec, for the judgment OF the counsel who placed among
the proofs with such asseveraon oil confidence, required
Tor II some brief examination. Had the decision
rial force this issue. such is my respect for that
court that should speak TO your honor. before the
court itself, faithfully the sentiments enter ain be
evng that truthful criticism would meet APPRECIATION
though might expose TO Truth ia the panopy
OF the ludcaure, and the ermne will not shield from
animation, while II does not restrain from injustice II
believed the decision sound IN law, sustained IN fact
would neither oppose nor strive 10 evade IT, But
withhold here, before any tribunal from discussing
the merits deaouncng the imperiectons OF any
cited as authority IN law, much less decision intro
duced as evidence OF disputed fact. know no excuse
could make Tor noD-peHormance OF that duty in a
clients cause, when such decision leglimstey be.
lore the court. An examination OF that record WILL |
think expose such in law and fact to neutral
ze its authority, even were IL properly before you.
will briefly Stale my views.
l. That court issued perpetual injuneton against the
defendant In patent cause where the validity OF the pat
ent had never been established at law.
a. The court OF chsncery has jurisdiction in patent
suits, save auxiliary 10 court OF law either in pre-
limnary stages to stay waste, or upon the final esab-
lshmen OF The validity OF The patent, al law 10 enforce
the right by perpetual Injunction.
An examination of the authorities will show that the
court erred in denying to the defendant trial by jury IN
the Trenton And this assert with confidence
from having observed that the only authority named by
the court IN support OF this denial with which
had professional connerion, and know that the trial by
Jury was waived by the defendants