The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-25

the person to whom the renewal should be granted
AS ne represented the patent TO have bee obtained
oy hmsei, there can be no doubt as 10 the imporf
OF hls prayer, and that his intention was to have
lt extended TO himself II is perfectly obvious thai
the patent having been issued To Wash and otbers
the Board OF Extension had no power to extend n 10
1 him. They could do no less therefore Than dis
miss the petition. Whether they might not have
devised a remedy for him, had be presented him
/ self under more favorable auspices and had his
assignees united with him in the proceeding does
not appear II is sufficient for the present pur-
pose that their decision did not proceed upon the
ground that patent Issued TO the assignee of an
inventor could in no case be extended. Upon that
point they gave no opinion.
If, therefore, in the of the Hansons, whose
petition was in proper form, and prayed an extern
sion to the patentees, the Commissioner acted upon
the supposition that the previous decision pro-
ceeded upon such principle, and that The act Q {
May u, 1885, rendered that principle binding
upon him, 1t is obvious that he entirely mis-
led 1t might well bear an argument whether the
Legislature intended by that act to give the force
OF statute 10 the decisions of the Board. Admit
ting that it did, tits plain that the Board had never
adopted the principle contended for.
The last decision, therefore, can have little
weight as precedent, except what it derives from
the form in which it was expressed. But when il
is understood that the language drawn from
that adopted in the former case, without adverting
to the fact that in that the petitioner asked an
extension to himself when the patent had been
issued to others, viii in the latter the prayer was
Tor an extension to the proper parties, the infer
ence drawn from the form of the decision is ent-
tied to very little consideration There were
circumstances beside in the case of the Hansons
which amply warranted the Commissioner in dis
missing their application, and which distinguish
itwIdeiy from the present 1t is only necessary
TO mention that the patentees were not parties TO
the proceeding
The order of Mr. Commissioners Burke denies
the right of the inventor who has parted with his
patent TO have new improvements endorsed upon
or n hay 10 rpIze rrai,ld
was intended to operate where the question arises
between the inventor and the assignee. The right
OF the assignee to the benefit of the proceedings
described is expressly recognised in the latter
branch of the order; and the order, if ii has any
bearing upon the controversy, gives countenance
to the claims of the applicants.
Upon the merits, should myself decide the
question in their favor, were that the only ground
to be considered. AS for the expressions on the
statute, much relied upon, it is clear that the
word 'spatentee'' is used throughout as synony-
NOUS with inventor. Neither that nor the provi-
sion thatth extended patent should have the same
effect as If originally granted for twentyon years
were used with any reference to the right of the
assignee, and throw little no light on the sub
ject. When the act in which they are contained
was passed, there was no provision for issuing the
patent to an assignee; and whatever the previous
practice may have been, as appears from Thomas's
case, the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, au-
thorizing such issue, plainly shows that the
Legialaturelhad contemplated no such proceeding
IN the previous enactment Had these several
provisions been embraced in one statute, there
would have been some force in the argument de-
rived from their incongruity. | see very little as
it is On the contrary, the act Of 1897 was plainly
not intended to restrict inventors in the enjoyment
of the rights and privileges conferred upon them,
but rather to facilitate them in bringing their die
coveries into market, by enabling them to hold
out 10 the purchaser, as additional inducement,
the light of taking out patent in his own name.
The inventor who takes this course is certainly
not admonsted by any thing the Legislature have
no lc mar
as that OF having his patent renewed. There is
nothing in the nature of the transaction that
ders his claim to it less meritorous, shows that
he does not come within the spirit ofthe law That
he may subject himself. to some Inconvenience,
and prepare some embarrassments for himself
when he comes to avail himself of the privilege,
may be true. But, as understand the rule, it is
the inconvenience to the public that authorizes
tribunal to reject proposed construction of a
statute; not the circumstance that the privileges
thereby conferred are trammelled with some diff
culties, which different legislation might have
avoided. Every objection against the policy of
this view may be urged with the same force in case
of sale by the inventor Immediately after the
granting Of the patent. The practice of foreign
governments is in accordance with the one advo-
Gated, and tends strongly to showits expediency
and proprety; and that no such prohibition of it
was intended by the Legislature, is rendered GER
tain when we reflect that the only effect would be
to render nugatory, and abolish in practice the
provision for issuing patents to assignees. The
patent would hereafter be taken out in the name
of the inventor, though he had assigned his inter
est, and he would thus eyade the difficulty with
ease. -.
1t is said however, that the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner is limited one, melted out to him
by the statute-beyond the express words of which
he cannot go. The same objection raised in
the of Woodwork as. Sherman, Story R.,
Ill; and Nelson us. Rousseau, How. r 646,
where the patent in controversy had been extend
ed to the administrator of the inventor, and it was
held to be correct. If, under the word spatentee,
in VT ma he ora fo N adj
there ought to be little no misgivings to the
right of granting TO the patentee himself, al
though he is the assignee; and trust may be inn
piled in one case as well as in the other. The
clause prescribing the effect TO be given to an ex-
tension, cannot in fine be supposed, with much
reason, TO initiate against the Commissioners ju-
rsdiction. The truth is, this argument s mis-
application Of the doctrine; and the cases above
cited answer it so fully as to render further dis
cussion unnecessary $3.50. sa tll a-
Were my opinion directly the reverse OF what
it is, another consideration would impelTpe to the
same disposition of this point If the applicant is
defeated on this ground, he has no means of cor
recting the decision, if erroneous The opponents,
On the other hand, test it's legality by resisting
The patent in the courts. They have protested
against being driven to such a remedy, as involv-
ng repetition of the enormous litigation already
produced by this and kindred patents. The COM
,laint has little or no foundation. II would be inn
possible to frame bill or declaration for any
uture Infringement upon this patent that would
lot be open 10 demurrer, upon which the question
Under consideration must meet with speedy de-
,iaion, The more doubt there is about it, the more
important ii becomes that il should be settled on
he highest authority. Until then there will be 90
much uncertainty and complaint respecting it,
hat the Commissioned who persists in preventing
resort to the courts of law, by deciding against
hese applications on this ground, assumes more
han usual responsibility. And should the point
yer be carried up, and the doctrine be settled in
avor of such extensions, he will hardly be able to
atisfy his own sense of justice for what he has
lone, much less that of the public.
1t was also urged, with great earnestness, upon
he argument, that Hayward had sold out his en-
ire interest in the invention-not merely.hs right
nder the patent; that the extended term would
elong to his assgnees If granted and should
therefore, be denied. That depends upon the ques.
on whether the inventor sell this contingent
ght. There are evils attendant upon recognising
UGH a sale, no doubt. The same emer geneies or
rant of thrift which have often led the inventor
sacrifice his original patent, may lead him to
art with this last tG6uio nasgragio, if be is al
,wed to do have yet to learn, however, that
congress have undertaken, in their care for inven.
,rs, to secure them against the consequences Of
leir weakness or misfortune by any general pro-
ision; or that the Commissioner is warranted in
utting construction upon the law for such a
urpose. If this objection were allowed the pa
,ntee who had held his patent fourteen wears.
ouId not cell his right TO renewal which will
ardly be contended TO be law As to the lam
uage which has been used by the courts they have