The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-24
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
The Patent Laws-Infrinsenicn of As.
signment en- the Rights Of the Patentce-
Assiu


Assignee.
Le,ets Moore, Plaintiff In Error, Us. James Marsh
ana Olers.-Thc plaintiff in this cause was the pat
entee of certain improvements in grain drills. He
sold interests at various times to other parties until
he had nearly ceased to have the exclusive interest
In any part OF the country. But up to February 25,
1885, he remained sole OF the patent FOR Union
county, Pa. The defendants IN error made and sold
drills OF his patent IN that county for period OF two
years prior TO that date. In November, 1866, plaintiff
brought suit In his own name, without Joining his
assignee OF half interest In that county any other
parties owning with him elsewhere, TO recover dam
ages for the Infringement OF the patent by the defend
ants during that period for which he sole owner.
The defendants objected, by demurrer, that at the
time OF commencing his suit the plant II was not
sole owner OF the patent either In the county In
which the infringement was alleged, or In any part
OF the United states. and this point the court be-
low western Circuit Of sustained tue
The plaintiff appealed TO this court and the cause
now came on to be heard. In support Of the appeal
counsel contended that there can be no doubt that
Joint patentees or assignees OF patent are tenants
in common, and that 1t never was questioned that
tenants IN common cannot Join In an action to re-
cover damages for a trespass to an estate which,
though now belonging to them, was, when the
damages accrued were assumed, the sole pro-
reason for exception to this rule In patent
cases. In fact, It Is believed to be the every ,day
Be- had or damages given since assignment. No one
ever asserted that tho assignment OF patent by
mere operation OF law carried with II all the back
damages to the last assignee. The words s.name OF
the person Interested used In the fourteenth section
Of the act OF July 4 1890. mean, II Is submitted.
'spersons interested In the patent at the time the
cause OF action occurred and not persons inter-
escd In the patent at the time OF bringing the s1ito
as Insisted by detendantS in error, and was held
below II had been the intention OF the act to up
set the rule OF the common law upon this subject
and to provide statute OF descent, by which the
damages should all fall to the last assignee the
tentioh would have been clearly set forth In the act
In Dean vs.. Mason 10 How, 1881, where Mason,
one OF the plaintifs below, parted with hls interest
and also for leave to file a supplemental bill in the
name OF the assignees. Both motions were denied
and on appeal the Supreme Court say.-The motion
TO dismiss the compalnants bill, upon proof that
they parted with oil their interest In the subject
matter Of the suit was properly overrued. The ale
1882 and the account OF the profits Is brought down
only to August, 1851 The right asserted In the ac-
ton was not affected by the conveyance OF Mason To
his assQnees. The refusal OF the Circuit to permit
supplemental bill to be filed BY the assignees was,
under the circumstances, matter OF discretion In
the court aud 1t anords no ground for the reversal
OF the decree. 1t Ii not perceived what interest
these assignees could have In suit for an infringe
ment OF patent before their right accrued. In
answer TO the above case the defendants say the
transfer of license, aud was not In this case,
the assignment Of an interest In the patent Aud II
IL said that the law relative to assignments OF
patents and the erect OF such transfers upon tue
rights OF the parties finds no analogy In the primer
pies or rules OF the common law. On the gShotG
OF the court below and submit that the ialguasso
the act OF 1859 referred TO in the aintli ny
Intere ted in the paient nsnh not lhtS9SsSi
IN the danaues.r