St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-05

invention for the term prescribed by
law:
If your invention has not been in
troduced into public use in the United
states for more than two years, you
may, upon complying with the condi-
ditions prescribed, obtain an Ameri-
can patent, and you may, if you can,
obtain foreign patent. But the
American patent will be granted on
the condition that if you obtain the
foreign patent first, your invention
snail be free to the American people
Wherever by reason of the expiration
OF the foreign patent it becomes free
to people abroad; but in no case shall
the term of the American patent ex-
coed seventeen years.
This we deem to be a sound inter-
probation of the statute, giving to the
words used the meaning required by
thelr ordinary Specification In our
judgment the language used is so plain
and unambfguous that a refusal to
recognize its natural, obvious mean
ing would be justly regarded as indi-
eating purpose to
CHANGE THE LAW
by judicial action based upon some sup
posed policy of congress-
The decision further says 'It is
also said that the United States prom
1sed the inventor, when making appli-
cation, to give him patent for the full
term OF seventeen years from the date
of his patent, if upon examination, it
was found that he was entitled to one
at the time of such application; and,
consequently, curtailment of that
term by reason of something occur
ring after the filing of the patent for
which he may not be responsible is
not consistent with good faith upon
the part of the government. Of course,
this court would hesitate to accept any
construction of an act of congress that
would imply bad faith upon the part
of any branch of the government.
But the contention just referred to as
sumes the very matter in dispute. 1t
assumes that the promise to the in
Ventor was not accompanied by any
condition authorizing the government
to limit the term of its patent to some
period less than seventeen years from
Its date. If the promise to issue pat
ent is made with the reservation in the
statute containing the promise that
the patent, when issued, should be.
limited to expire with any foreign
patent previously issued for the same
invention, then there is no basis for
the suggestion that the enforcement
of that condition violates any promise
made to the inventor
After disposing of numerous Incl
dental points of the plaintiff the de-
cision proceeds: "a good deal can be
said about the
INTENTION OF. CONGRESS
as manifested by it's legislation to deal
literally with inventors, and especial
ly those who were citizens of the
United States. This is true. But it
is for congress to prescribe the con-
ditions upon which 1t will secure to in
ventors the exclusive right to their in
ventions. What may be due to in
ventors is matter about which there
may we'll exist differences of opinion.
1T Is the province of the legislative
branch of the government to say when
patent to an inventor shall expire
and, therefore, when the public may
enjoy, without charge, the benefit of
the invention covered by 1t. We can
very we'll understand how the existing
statute may in some circumstances
operate fnjuriously to an American in
ventor who, in addition to the exclus-
i've rights granted to him In this coun-
try for the term of seventeen years,
wishes to secure a monopoly for his
invention abroad before obtaining one
here. The American patent limited hy
law, whether it is so expressed or not in
the patent itself, to expire with the
term. This is the case as it appear
from the standpoint of the patentee,
without regard to the interests of the
American public.
1--WE need not say whether these con-
sidera,:ons were or were not sufficient
to induce the change made by the
twenty-fifth section of the act of 1870,
and by the existing statute. They are
referred to only as showing what con-
gress may have had in view when It
provided as it did that an invention
COVERED BY A FOREIGN PATENT
which the inventor obtained or caused
to be obtained before receiving an
American patent should be free 20 the
American people as soon as It became
free by reason of the expiration of the
AOiCi6h PdlCHl " Tic OI CCnGr
countries. If this principle operates
hardship upon inventors in certain cases
1t is for congress, whose discretion is
not subject to judicial control, to make
provision for those cases, if it be posi-
bic to do so without such injury to the
people of our country as ought not to
be inflicted upon them.
The rule prescribed by the twenty
fifth section of the act of 1870 having
been reproduced in section 1887 of the
Revised Statutes, and the latter sec
ton never having been amended, we
ought not, after the lapse of nearly
twenty-five years from the passage of
the act of 1870, place upon it's twenty
fifth section, or upon section 1887 of
the Revised Statutes, which took it's
place, any Interpretation other than
which the ordinary natural meaning OF
their words import. Our answers,
therefore, to the questions certified
are that the invention for which United
States patent to Bate was issued was,
under the facts stated, previously pa
tented in foreign country within the
drRTvTAE ENE