Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/86297/bate-refrigerating-co-vs-hammond
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 04:50:40
Document Index: 543966857

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 4857', '§ 4887', '§ 4887', '§ 6', '§ 4887', '§ 6', '§ 25', '§ 4887']

Bate Refrigerating Co Vs Hammond - Citation 86297 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Bate Refrigerating Co. Vs. Hammond - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/86297CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJan-21-1889Case Number129 U.S. 151AppellantBate Refrigerating Co.RespondentHammondExcerpt:.....five years" from january 9, 1877, and although the instrument granting the first extension of five years states that it is granted "for another period of five years, to commence and be computed on and from the ninth day of january, which will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two," and although the instrument granting the second extension of five years states that it is granted
by the language of § 17 of the canadian act of 1872, what was granted under it was "an extension of the patent" -- of the same patent -- for a further term. therefore the canadian patent does not expire, and it never..... Judgment:
Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond - 129 U.S. 151 (1889)
A United States patent was granted November 20, 1877, for seventeen years, on an application filed December 1, 1876. A patent for the same invention had been granted in Canada, January 9, 1877, to the same patentee, for five years from that day, on an application made December 19, 1876. On a petition filed in Canada by the patentee December 5, 1881, the Canada patent was, on December 12, 1881, extended for five years from January 9, 1582, and, on December 13, 1881, for five years from January 9, 1887, under § 17 of the Canada act assented to June 14, 1872 (35 Victoria, c. 26).
under § 4857 of the Rev.Stat., that, as the Canada act was in force when the United States patent was applied for and issued,
It was not necessary to the validity of the United States patent that it should have been limited in duration, on its face, to the duration of the Canada patent, but it is to be so limited by the courts, on evidence
as to expire at the same time with the Canada patent, not running more than the seventeen years.
The defendant filed a plea setting up, among other things, that on the 9th of January, 1877, letters patent of the Dominion of Canada, No. 6,938, for the same invention as that described and claimed in No. 197,314 were granted to the same John J Bate, for the term of five years from the 9th of January, 1877; that after No. 197,314 had expired,
at the end of the term of five years for which such Canadian patent was granted, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, upon being advised of the grant of such Canadian patent, vacated and set aside an injunction which it had theretofore granted, by an interlocutory decree made in a suit in equity founded on No. 197,314, brought by the Bate Refrigerating Company against Benjamin W. Gillett and others; that thereafter Bate and the Bate Refrigerating Company procured the rendition of a judgment by the Superior Court for Lower Canada, declaring the Canadian patent to have been void
and vacating it and setting it aside; that such judgment of the superior court for Lower Canada being brought to the attention of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, that court reinstated said injunction, and that afterwards the Superior Court for Lower Canada, in a suit brought by Sir Alexander Campbell, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada against Bate and the Bate Refrigerating Company and others, adjudged that its said prior judgment had been "arrived at through the fraud to the law and collusion" of Bate the Bate Refrigerating Company and another other person,
The bill was then amended by averring that the application for the Canadian patent was not made until December 19, 1876, while the application for No. 197,314 was made December 1, 1876, and that the Canadian patent was not actually or legally issued until on or about June 26, 1878, on or about which date a model of the invention, as required by law, was filed in the Canadian Patent Office. The amendment to the bill also set forth the two judgments of the Superior Court for Lower Canada, and averred that, by virtue of an act of the
and that he was the holder of that patent in trust for the Bate Refrigerating Company, and prayed that it might be extended "for another period of ten years;" that, on the filing of that petition, an extension of the patent was granted, on December 12, 1881, "for a second period of five years" from January 9, 1882; that a further extension of the patent was granted, December 13, 1881, "for a third period of five years" from January 9, 1887; that the plaintiff is thereby estopped from denying the fact that No. 6,938 was legally granted, January 9, 1877, for a period of five years; that by virtue of the act of 46 Vict. c. 19, the original term for which No. 6,938 was granted was not fifteen years instead of five years; that said act can have no effect on the
3. In pursuance of said application, the Commissioner of
7. On or about July 9, 1883, and June 30, 1886, the Superior Court for Lower Canada rendered two judgments affecting said Canada patent, to the purport set forth in the plea and the answer. The stipulation further provided that if the decision of the circuit court should be in favor of the plaintiff, it should have a reasonable time thereafter to file a replication in the answer, and the cause should proceed in the ordinary manner; that if the circuit court should decide the cause in favor of
The cause was heard on the pleadings and stipulation, and the circuit court entered a decree dismissing the bill, 35 F. 151, from which decree the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. The circuit court gave no opinion on the merits of the case, but in deciding it followed, as it stated, the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, held by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, in August, 1887, made in the case of
Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett,
31 F. 809.
Two propositions as to the construction of this section are contended for by the appellant: (1) that the words "first patented or caused to be patented in a foreign country" do not mean "first patented or caused to be patented" before the issuing, or granting, or date, of the United States patent, but
This statute appears to have been strictly complied with in
Section 6 of the Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, provided that a United States patent for an invention patented in a foreign country more than six months prior to the application of the inventor for the United States patent should be limited to a term of fourteen years from the date or publication of the foreign patent. Section 25 of the Act of July 8, 1870, 16
These provisions of the act of 1870 and of the Revised Statutes mean that the United States patent shall not expire so long as the foreign patent continues to exist, not extending beyond seventeen years from the date of the United States patent, but shall continue in force, though not longer than seventeen years from its date, so long as the foreign patent continues to exist. Under § 4887, although, in the case provided for by it, the United States patent may on its face run for seventeen years from its date, it is to be so limited by the courts, as a matter to be adjudicated on evidence
as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent, not running in any case more than the seventeen years, but, subject to the latter limitation, it is to be in force as long as the foreign patent is in force.
In October, 1878, in the Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, in
Henry v. Providence Tool Co.,
3 Ban. & Ard.Pat. 501, it was held that the 25th section of the Act of July 8, 1870, meant that the United States patent should expire at the same time with the original term of a foreign patent for the same invention, without regard to any prolongation of the foreign patent which the patentee might procure from the foreign government. In that case, the United States patent was granted October 10, 1871. A British patent for the same invention had been granted to the patentee on the 15th of
That decision was followed by the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York in
Reissner v Sharp,
16 Blatchford 383, in June, 1879, which case arose under § 4887 of the Revised Statutes. In that case, the United States patent, granted October 20, 1874, for seventeen years, was held to have expired on the 15th of May, 1878, because a patent was granted in Canada, under the authority of the patentee, for the same invention on the 15th of May, 1873, for five years from that day, although in March, 1878, the Canada patent was extended for five years from the 15th of May, 1878, and also for five years from the 15th of May, 1883.
Bates Refrigerating Co. v Gillett,
13 F. 533, in the Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, in August, 1882, and in the same suit in the same court in August, 1887, 31 F. 809, in regard to the patent in question in the present suit and on the same facts here presented, it was held, on the strength of the two circuit court cases above referred to, that the United States patent expired when the original term of the Canadian patent expired
But we are of opinion that in the present case, where the Canadian statute under which the extensions of the Canadian patent were granted was in force when the United States patent was issued and also when that patent was applied for, and where, by the Canadian statute, the extension of the patent for Canada was a matter entirely of right at the option of the patentee, on his payment of a required fee, and where the fifteen-years term of the Canadian patent has been continuous and without interruption, the United States patent does not expire before the end of the fifteen-years duration of the Canadian patent. This is true although the United States patent runs on its face for seventeen years from its date, and is not on its face so limited as to expire at the same time with
15 How. 62, the patent to Morse was issued June 20, 1840, for fourteen years from that day, while § 6 of the Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, was in force, which required that every United States patent for an invention patented in a foreign country should be "limited to the term of fourteen years from the date or publication of such foreign letters patent." Morse applied for his United States patent April 7, 1838. He obtained a patent in France for his invention October 30, 1838. The objection was taken in the answer that the United States patent was void on its face because not limited to the term of the French patent. The circuit court held that the patent was not void, but that the exclusive right granted by it must be limited to fourteen years from October 30, 1838. The same objection was urged in this Court, and the same ruling was made. In
Smith v. Ely,
15 How. 137, which was a suit on the same patent under the same facts, the same question arose and was decided in the same way. A full and interesting discussion of the question is to be found in
Canan v. The Pound Mfg. Co.,
23 F. 185, in regard to § 4887, which contains the same word "limited" found in § 6 of the act of 1839, which word is not found in § 25 of the Act of July 8, 1870, from which § 4887 was taken.
Under this view, the time of the expiration of the foreign patent may be shown by evidence
either by the record of the foreign patent itself, showing its duration, or other proper evidence, and it is no more objectionable to show the time of the expiration of the foreign patent by giving evidence of extensions such as those in the present case, and thus to show the time when, by virtue of such extensions, the United States patent will expire.
We find in the record in this case, among the papers which it states were submitted to the court under the stipulation above referred to, a certificate of the Commissioner of Patents, dated July 3, 1883, appended to a certified copy of the United States patent, stating that the term thereof is limited so that