The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-07-29

OaGEIs
Now, have q most profound respect for the
iesyned judge who delivered this opinion; but as the
case turned notupon this question, but upon other
points, these licenses have to be critically examined;
because II will be found looking at the licenses
referred to by the Court that they are different in
language and in terms from the Naugatuck license.
But what does the Judge say when he comes to the
point on which the case was decided? Can these
various licenses afterwards became consolidated in
the Union India Rubber Company, the defendants
In TINS SUIT, and present therefore, complete
deience to the suit if Goodyear the true owner
OF tne ChaHee renewed patent" (And they decided,
as they say little below, that he was.) "The
license OF the defendants therefore, in this case
stands upon two grounds, either Of which would
infringement: First, authority from Goodyear, the
owner OF the renewed term Of the patent; and, Sc
como, the express recognition of Chaffee the pa
tentee, OF the right of these parties as licensees of
add to these grounds Of Defence that upon the in
depreciation Of the Court in the case Of Hartshorn
vs. Day, Of the several agreements relating to this
patent and especially that Of the 5th September,
looO Day TOOK no interest in it under the assign
ment Of Chahee, of LIST July 1853, he having previ-
GUS to that time parted with all his interest for the
benefit OF Goodyear and his licensees"
Those are the grounds on which the Court mt H.
There was no question before them about the re-
newed or extended term Of the patent Of June Is,
1874, and presume 1t was never argued. II was
patcnt-8Q0
the decision is put upon the ground that the COM
plainant, Day, had no right whatever, if the pa
tent was violated, to recover; and that was sufi
cient to decide that case. But the Court went
on and decided that the defendants had a
right to the extended term Of the Chaffee
patent, under the license from the Nauga-
tuck Company. Now, what s that license?
"That the said Charles Goodyear, in consideration
of the payments and stipulations herein provided,
hath given and granted = y unto the said Manga
tuck India Rubber Company full and absolute
license to use any and all his preparations of india
rubber and improvements in the preparation of
india rubber for manufacturing cloths any other
article OF merchandise or any article to which the
same may be applicable, for and during the unex-
Pred term Of all patents issued to him. bearing any
gives it to them during the term of all patents
issued to him, bearing any date whatsoever. "And
for and during the unexpired term or terms of any
other patent, patents or renewal of patents owned
by him Chat is, that he then Owned), or in which
he may have an interest, issued or to be issued"
That was to cover cases where he might have had
an interest in patent which had not been issued,
and the courts have decided that you can sell an
interest in patent that is to be issued.
Now read 1t the other way, as the counsel for the
defendants would have it read. "For and during
the unexpired term of all patents issued to him,
patents owned by him, or in which he may have
an interest, issued or to be issued" You would
have him using the word issued twice, because
he has granted above the right to the use of his
which is full grant; and then he grants to them in
different sentence, the use "for and during the
unexpired term or terms Of any other patent or
patents, or renewals of patents, owned by him."
Does not the word renewals in this sentence re.
fer to patents that were owned by him but not
issued to him-because there was the Chafiee pa
tent which was owned by but not issued to him
or to those in which he might have interest for
the invention to be patented?
Now let US look at the license to Trotter. See
the difference in the language 1t is a license to
use any Of the machinery, compositions, and
methods of manufacturing and preparing India
rubber which the said party of the first
part now has or may hereafter have, by virtue of
any patent or patents, or otherwise for and during
the unexpred term or terms of any such patent or
patents or renewal, or renewals thereof, which
or may be owned by him, or in which he may have
an interest. or of which he may become pos
sessed." That is different language entirely.
The next is the license to Riders q Trotter. This
/, contains an express provision that it shall "con
tinue during the unexpired term or terms of said
patents, or any of them, or the renewals thereof"
That, therefore, is very clear. He intended to con-
| vey whatever he did convey to them during the
renewal of all patents; for he says so in express
| language. 1t is to continue during the unexpired
term or terms of said patents, any Of them or the
| renewals thereof
in the agreement of Goodyear WIN the Union
Company Of prI SO, 1903, he speaks of the patent
about to expire and this is cited by the counsel for
the defendants to show that the Naugstuck license
! was intended to extend into the extended term of
| the-patent of June Is, 1874, by this agreement.
| Now let us look at this moment. 1t says: "That
whereas the parties OF the second part have GER
tain rights and interests in the patents of the party
! of the first palt, *** under an agreement made
by the party Of the first part with the Naugatuck
India Rubber Company %1I go with Jonathan Trot
an agreement made with William Rider q Brothers
and Jonathan Trotter; ** = and whereas the pa
tent Of the party Of the first part, dated June Is,
ls44, is about to expire, and application has
been made for an exteneion thereof. Now, in
order to fix. define, and render certain the
rights and obligations of the parties" they pro-
coed to arrange the tariff respecting cloth
when made into clothing. Now, was that made
under the Naugatuck license? Notat all; butunder
the Trotter license. They are to pay two cents per
square yard of cloth in the piece, or when made up,
one and half cents pound on india rubber Sold
in sheets or otherwise, and two and half cents
pound for other articles not herein specified All
those goods are made under the license to Riders
and Trotter, and not under the Naugatuck license:
so that there is no argument to be drawn, con-
| ceive, from that agreement of Goodyear, to show
| that the Naugatuck license covered the extended
| term of that patent.
l am, therefore, disposed to think from this re.
view of these instruments, and of the deed of May
"a, 1853 that that deed would have conveyed in
terest to Day in the articles the infringement of
which has been complained Of But it is not neces-
sary to do so in this case. place the title of Day
on the contract Of 1886 and from the best attention
have been able to give It, have heard nothing in
the argument, and have seen nothing in the docu-
mentary or parol evidence to convince me that the
terms "shirred or corrugated, in the contract Of
Oct 80, 1916, should be limited and restricted to
the goods made under the patent of March 8, 1874.
/, therefore, will sign decree against the defend
ants restraining them, as prayed for in the bill.
The cause was argued on the part of the CON-
planants by Hon. j. Fl. Latrobe, of Maryland, T. A.
Jenckes, of Rhode Island, and G. A. Seward, Of
New York, with whom Hon. B. r. Curtis, Of Massa-
chusetts, and others were associated.
Military Affairs.