Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-02-19
sou,e Points Of Fact IN the Telephone
EnnarnNaraN.

A good many statements are made about
the proposed suit on the part Of the govern
ment to set aside the Bell telephone patent,
which, claiming to be matters Of ascertsined
fact. are not facts at all. One Of the most
common Of these is the assertion that 1t is
we'll settled fact that the government may
bring a suit to annul a patent. The truth is
that this question has never yet come to de-
cision before the suprt me court Of the United
States. The original patent act Of 1890 pro-
yided method Of annulling patent for an
invention within one year from the time
when granted, il shown to have been obtain
ed "surreptitiously by or upon false sugges-
ton" The time within which the proceed
ings must be begun was extended to three
years in 1913. Many patents we're vacated
under that law which was repealed in 1886.
Since it's repeal there have been four suits
brought by the government TO annul patents
for inventions, upon the general principles Of
law applicable to setting aside patents for
government land. The first was brought by
Attorney General Williams, during Grant last
administration, against the Rumford Ohemi-
cal Works to annul patent for self-raisng
flour. 1t was decided by Circuit Judge Shep-
ley Of the first circuit in the district Of Rhode
Island in May, 1876, who held that since the |
repeal of the law for annulling patents such |
a suit could not be maintained by the United |
States.
The next case was against Cunning and
Ingersoll to repeal a patent for enameled !
letters for signs on glass windows such as
have now come to be in common use. 1t was
decided by Circuit Judge Wallace Of the sec
ond circuit in the southern district of New
| York, on demurrer to the BILL that such
suit could be maintained by the United States
torepeal patent for an invention obtained by
fraud the same as to repeal patent for pub
| lie land obtained in the same manner. This
decision was given in November 1888.
The third suit was brought by the United
States against Clinton G. Colgate to repeal a
patent granted in 1867 for gutta percha as an
insulstor of electric wires. 1t came up on a
motion for an injunction to restrain suits for
infringement. The motion was denied Au-
gust ., 1884, on the ground that the United
States had no interest in such suits. The
case did not go beyond the circuit court for
further hearing. The patent expired in 1884.
The fourth case was that of the United
States against Frazer to repeal patent for
improvements in axle grease and was heard
in October, 1884, by Judge Blodgett, in the
northern district of Illinois, on demurrer to
the bill The demurrer was sustained and
the bill dismissed All these cases are re-
ported iu various issues of the Federal Re
porter.
The enamelled letter case against Cunning
and Ingersoll went to hearing before Judge
Wheeler of the Vermont district on the proof
on the question whether the alleged fraud
WAS established and the fraud was found
proved. There was motion for a rehearing
to introduce newly discovered evidence, which
was denied and Judge Wheeler ordered de
cree to be entered setting aside the patent
, This is the only decree which has ever been
t made annulling patent for an invention
since the repeal in 1886, Of the law of $50,
and the case has a certain local interest from
the fact that the decree was made by the Judge
, of Vermont district, citizen Of this town and
l. county.
t OF these four decisions in the circuit courts
it will be seen that two we're against the gov
:, ernments power to maintain such a suit,
9 one was in favor Of it and went to a decree
= annulling the patent and in the fourth the
y question was not directly involved. None OF
Is the cases went beyond the circuit court and
:, the supreme court has never yet had a chance
, to decide whether such suit can be main
! tanned In the Bell telephone case the mos
that can be legitimately said is that the De
q partments of Justice and of the Interior hole
u that the government can bring and maintair
a suit to snnul the patent.
g Another misapprehenson arises from
in statement which has been confidently mad
te that there are grounds on which the govern
o ment can MAINTAIN such a suit which are no
NJ open to an individual in defence of a sui
I'd upon a patent. The fact is that there
Sc no ground on which the government ca
b. maintain suit to annul patent that woul
le not be defence by an individual in a suit o
h the patent. The individual right or standin
de on either side of any given case is precisel
the same as that of the government to quei
I'M ton the validity of the patent. govern
IFS ment suit if successful, will wipe out th
- patent altogether, while decision in an ind
oh vidual case would leave it in force as to oil
,lv ers, but decision in one case is general
f. followed in all other cases on the same paten
at 1t should further be borne in mind tina
lr. should suit against the Bell company /
led maintained and the Bell patent be finally al
=. nulled, this would not give Gray patent an
'e' ifeestaolish Gray monopoly in place of B,
M monopoly, as is often claimed. The voidin
10 of tSe Bell patent would simply wipe out u
Ut IT. pstept and leave the field occupied by.4 an
MS u. to the publiS The invention thstyalepbo
Az n, has been too ,Png known Oad hss come in
VI too general ussto permit sneS, her patent
'1 Of be granted for he orig''s. principle or
irse coVery on "nlcn transmission OF Sruc
for late speech by electricity is based