Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-01-19
0Wurrestrr 4allp. gpp.
SEWING MACHINE PATENT CASES.

The following exceedingly useful informa-
ton to patentees and Others relates to import
ant patent suits instituted by o. B. Potter and
n. Wheeler against Stedman & Holland, for in
fringing the re-iSSued patents granted to Allen
b. Wilson as the feeding device for sewing
machines by which the operator can turn the
cloth while the machine is in operation, so as
to sew seam Of any desired curvature.
Several months since, on applications for in
functions to the United States Circuit Court,
sitting at New Haven, Conn, the defendants
in these cases raised the objection that the re-
issued patents were void, because Wilson made
the surrender of the original patent, and took
the reissues while he was not the sole owner
of the patent, and that it required the concur
renee of all persons interested in the original
patent to make valid surrender under the act
of Congress.
1t appeared by the record of the cases, that
at the time Wilson made the surrender of the
original patent for a reissue, there were some
States which he had disposed of, and for which
he did not own the whole interest in the pa
tent.
The cases, on this question of law, were af-
forwards argued at Hartford, Conn, by Messrs.
Baldwin and Ingersoll, of New Haven, and
George Clifford, of New York. for the complain
ants, and Messrs. Dickerson and Brady, of New
York, for the defendants before Judges Nelson
and lngersoll; after which decision was rend-
cred by Judge lngersol, concurred in by Judge
Nelson, in favor of the compliments and sus-
tanning the patents, and in which it is decided ::
First, That surrender of an original patent,
to be operative, may be made by the patentee
alone, where there is not an outstanding as
signment, or by the assignees of the whole pa
tent, and by no other party.
Second, That an assignee, in the sense of
To-, H., L
to him either the whole patent or an undivided
interest in the whole patent.
Third, That a purchaser and owner of pa
tent for specified territory, as for a State, is
only grantee, and not in the sense of the pa
tent law, an assignee, and need not join or con-
cur in a surrender of the patent for a reissue.
Fourth, That persons holding interest under
the patent other than as assignees or grantees,
thus defined, are only licensees, and have moth
ing to do with the surrender.
Fifth, That surrender and reissue of pa
tent does not necessarily destroy the original
patent, but that, on the contrary, grantees and
licensees may claim and hold under either the
original after the surrender, or the reissue as
they shall elect; but that after electing, they
are bound by their election, and cannot i'll any
case claim under both.
Sixth, That where surrender is made by
the patentee, and there is an outstanding as
signee, the surrender may, at any time be
made operative by a ratification by the as
signee.
These cases have since been argued on the
merits by the same counsel, before Judge In
gersoll, and decision has not yet been rend-
cred. All these questions of decision are of
great interest, especially the first, fifth and
sixth, which embrace novel features and they
will be precedents for future action.