New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-05
RIG PATENTS AFFECTED.
EAR-REACHING DECISION BY The oo-
pREME COURT. AT WASHlNGION'

,.p,c,x PATENT HELD TO EMPIRE WITH
THE EXPIRATION OF a FOREIGN fAlhNl i"N'
yro1.s1Y GRANTED on THE SAME lNNhN-
r,ov-Tur VAST INTERESTS INVOLVED
~ THE RATE REFRIGERATOR CASE
cosbireton March THE Supreme Court OF the
,.i,od states to-day in an opinion read by Justice
HARLAN decided that the date OF issue o. anu "o
,ba date OF application for, an Ni'e'N" =,
s,orrines whether not 1t expires coihc'deh'ails
,,h q foreign patent granted for the same lnVeh-
w., Tho decision was made In the case OF the
90 Refriceratng Company agt Ferdinand Sulz-
- % AL certified from the Court OF Appeals
Gov the second Circuit. which asked the supreme
~ - decide The decision affects adversely
any ratenis. notably in connection with the use
- tho telephone the electric light and many other
,,eble Inventions representing ii Is estimated a
.o,al capital of s6O0o0.0O. which patents are by
tho decision held to have expired.
Some OF the foremost patent attorneys in the
limited States appeared and argued the point IN
voved before the Supreme Court OF the United
States the occupying two or three days Inc
decision has been long looked for and the court
room was crowded to-day with attorneys and others
Interested The opinion. long one. was reau ny
Justice Harlan II reviewed all the legislation on
the subject. discussed the meaning OF congress as
expressed in Section Asst of the REVISED "'a'u'o'
and closed follows
our answers to the questions certined are ,'i. a.
the invention for which United States patent 10
Bate was issued Was Gna nir me rounrS within the
meaning Of these words in SECTION ny. % me natnnt
W. him axnrei under the terms of that section
before the expiration Of seventeen !e''' i''' 80
date
The decision ~ the Supreme Court in the bate
Refrigeration case is of little no imI ortance TO
makers or users of refrgerators but is or interest
70 MANY heavy manufacturing corporations II
settles a question which has never before gone up
10 the court of last resort. but has uniformly oeei
decided the same way by the Circuit courts Moth
ing but the weight Of legal counsel employed by
the corporate interests affected and the wonderful
ingenuity OF their briefs. would have raised
doubt as to the correctness of the Interpretation
given the by the prior decisions Of the
lower courts Taking the question up TO the SUI
preme Court the last effort of the General
Electric Company. the Bell Telephone Company and
a number of other owners Of valuable patents TO
add few years to their mOnopoies.
The question arises from the following facts:
Nearly all foreign patents granted for terms
years shorter than the sever teen-year duration
OF the United States patent monopoly. AS the laws
of many foreign countries render a previous publ
cation such as the issuance of United States pat
ent fatal the validity of any subsequent grant of
monopoly in those countries. It is necessary for the
inventor file his papers abroad before the Amerl-
can patent issues Frequent delay in the Patent
Office here has caused mary important patents 10
hang fire in Washington until after the European
patents were issued. Consequently the American
monopoly has been limited TO the fourteen or ntteen
year term OF the foreign patent This was the case
with the Edison incandescent-lamp patent. some OF
the telephone patents. and many lesser ones IN
GLIDING the Bate refrigerator patent The Edison
Canadian patent. which was granted IN November
emf did not issue till January. 1880. and would have
run till January. 1897 II the Canadian patent did
control H.
The Circuit Courts have always held that the sec
II the foreign patent granted before the United
States patent issued it, controlled the American
patent as above. The able counsel of the General
Electric Company thought they saw an ambiguity
might mean that the foreign patent must autedate
the filing Of the application in the United states
instead Of merely preceding the issuance OF the
United States patent in order TO contro! T. Inc
could soon be had. IL was pushed as TEST cas-
James c. Carter and Charles +. Mitchell were
retained by the General Electric Company. ana later
MIR StorrOw n for the Bell COMPANY.
Wheeler H. Peckham and Edmun1 Wetmore We're
retained by the WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY; ana olher
interests 10 present the other SIDE OF tne ca
Nessrs Carter and Mitchell filed most convinclhg
briefs In the line of argument that IL was tne IN
tent OF Congress leave undisturbed the old law,
which was that the foreign patent must anedate te
annllcatOn AS Edison filed the application Tor ms
issued this Interpretation Of the law would leave
the General Electric monopoly TO stand ioI Two
wears Messrs PeCkham and Wetmore areued thaI
The question Of the intent Of the Legislature shoud
face and unless there were an ambiguity on ue
face of a statute the inquiry a TO the intent or tle
laU-making body was not allowable. f-NllelIuy the
Court took this view. -, .. .o...,
interests 10 do and that is TO get Congress to
change the law on this point. bill las been be-
fore every Congress for this purpose Tor the last
balf-dozen years, but has never become la".