The Washington times., 1914-08-12

involving the right of a Washington
druggist to resell a patent medicine
at cut price-as illustrative of the mis-
understanding and confusion which has
arisen under the recent Supreme Court
decisions. Section 2. of the oldneld
bill. says the report, will straighten out
the difficulties by putting patented
and unpatented articles on the same
footing regarding restrictions. Regard
Ing these two cases the report says:
However, in the case Of Henry VS.. A.
B. Dick Company, decided March II, 1912,
the Supreme court did uphold and pro-
mulgate the rule of law set out in the
Heaton case. The decision was rem
rered by a divided court composed OF
seven members. and the two opinions
delivered. respectively. by the majority
and minority discuss elaborately the
doctrine and its developments. The
facts involved were these: The A. B.
Dick Company made and sold pat
on the machine asserting that 1t was to
be used only with ink, paper, and other
supplies made by the A. B. Dick Com
pany. The court held that the sale of
ink by Henry, who knew Of the restric-
ton. to the owner Of the memeograph
for use Herewith was contributory in
fringement. Thus the facts are very
closely analogous to those In the Hea-
ton case and the result arrived at was
the same.
Law On Cut Prices.
The restriction as to the resale price,
curiously enough. was invalidated in
the Supreme Court in the case of Bauer
& Co. We. O'Donnell. May IS. 1918. The
facts were these: The complainant pre-
pared and sold drug compounded in
accordance with a formula protected by
a patent. Each container bore a notice
stating in substance that the contents
of the bottle we're patented: that the
bottle was sold under license whereby
the purchaser must retail it at not less
than 81. and that any one selling 1t for
a less price, or using It when so sold.
would be prosecuted for infringement.
The defendant. a druggist In WASH
in9ton. advertised and sold a quantity
at a cut price and complainant brought
suit for infringement; the lower court
dismissed the bill and complainant ap1
pesled to the Supreme Court. Before
the Supreme Court the complainant
was Joined by other vendors of patent
ed articles who ware anxious to have
upheld a practice in which they also
INDUCED. The court, by five to four
decision. declared there had been no
of the patent and affirm
ed the action OF the lower court IN
dismissing the bill.
THE court. in the majority opinion.
the case Of Henry vs..
A. b. Dick Company. Members of tho
committee find It difficult to fix upon
and difference in the principles in
in the two cases. Moreover, II
Is worthy of note that the four justices
who comprised the majority in the
Dick Company case dissented in the
Bauer case II would seem. then, that
the Supreme Court nas ruled that vio-
lation Of restrictions on tie right TO
,se a patented article which one has
purchased is an infringement of the
patent. while a violation OF the re-
strictions as to the price al which
dealer resells a patented article is not
ar infringement of the patent 1t Is
obvious that there IS great confusion
and uncertainty os to what restrictions |
may be imposed under the patent law
and what may not. In TIE case Of
Henry VS.. A. r. Dick Company, the !
declared that IL the law was |
10 be changed the legislature ought to !
change II, and the minority expressing |
their views through the chief justice |
pointed to the ruling then made by tho |
as an urgent occasion for leg
slative action Your committee think /
Lhe law ought 20 be changed and that /
The latter part nf section . will work
he proper change with the least dis
urbance to business.
Goes Back To Old Rule.
The clause places patented articles