Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/267/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 23:55:49
Document Index: 289724611

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 61', '§ 4920', '§ 24', '§ 4886', '§ 61', '§ 37', '§ 7']

Andrews v. Hovey (full text) :: 123 U.S. 267 (1887) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
Andrews v. Hovey 123 U.S. 267 (1887)
U.S. Supreme CourtAndrews v. Hovey, 123 U.S. 267 (1887)Andrews v. HoveyArgued October 18-19, 1887Decided November 14, 1887123 U.S. 267APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
In equity for alleged infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill, from which complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 123 U. S. 268
This patent was before this Court in the cases of Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40, and Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, at October term, 1886. In those cases, this Court sustained the validity of the reissued patent and affirmed the decrees of the circuit courts. In the present case, the decree of the circuit court was against the validity of the patent, and the bill was dismissed. 16 F. 387. From that decree the plaintiffs have appealed.
The brief of the appellants concedes that it is shown in this case that other persons than Green put the invention into public use more than two years before his application was filed. It is contended for the appellants that this was done without his knowledge, consent, or allowance. The appellee contends that such knowledge, consent, or allowance was not necessary in order to invalidate the patent, while the appellants contend that it was necessary. The whole question depends upon the proper construction of § 7 of the Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, interpreted in connection with §§ 6, 7, and 15 of the Act of July 4, 1836, 5 Stat. 119, 123. Page 123 U. S. 269
The point was not presented in Eames v. Andrews or in Page 123 U. S. 270 Beedle v. Bennett, and in the opinion in the latter case, it was said (p. 122 U. S. 77):
"that the inventor must apply for his patent within two years after his invention is in such a condition that he can apply for a patent for it, and that if he does not apply within such time, but applies after the expiration of such time and obtains a patent, and it appears that his invention was in public use at a time more than two years earlier than the date of his application, his patent will be void even though such public use was without his knowledge, consent, or allowance, and even though he was in Page 123 U. S. 271 fact the original and first inventor of the thing patented and so in public use."
"That every person or corporation who has or shall have purchased or constructed any newly invented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter prior to the application of the inventor or discoverer for a patent shall be held to possess the right to use, and vend to others to be used, the specific Page 123 U. S. 272 machine, manufacture, or composition of matter so made or purchased without liability therefor to the inventor or any other person interested in said invention, and no patent shall be held to be invalid by reason of such purchase, sale, or use prior to the application for a patent as aforesaid except on proof of abandonment of such invention to the public, or that such purchase, sale, or prior use has been for more than two years prior to such application for a patent."
In § 61 of the act of 1870, it was enacted that in any action for infringement, the defendant might prove on the trial, as a defense, among other things, that the thing patented "had been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years before his application for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public," and that if such special matter Page 123 U. S. 273 alleged should be found for the defendant, judgment should be rendered for him. This provision is now found in § 4920 of the Revised Statutes
The expression "such purchase" clearly means the purchase from any person, and not merely from the person who becomes the patentee of the machine or article. The expression "such sale or use" clearly refers to the use or sale by the person who has purchased or constructed the machine or article, the right to use and sell which is given to him by the first part of the section. That right is given to a person who has constructed the machine or Page 123 U. S. 274 article, as well as to one who has purchase it, and the plain declaration of the second part of the section is that where the purchase or construction of the machine or article took place more than two years prior to the application for the patent, or where the use or sale by the person who so purchased or constructed the machine or article took place at a time more than two years prior to the application, the patent becomes invalid. It is not possible in any other way to give full effect to the word "constructed" in the first part of the section. The word "purchased" and the word "constructed" are used in the same connection, and in connection with the words "so made or purchased," which occur afterwards, and the word "purchased" cannot be limited to a purchase from the applicant for the patent, nor can the word "constructed" be limited to a construction with the consent and allowance of such applicant without interpolating into the statute the words "consent or allowance." We can find no warrant for doing this. The evident purpose of the section was to fix a period of limitation which should be certain, and require only a calculation of time, and should not depend upon the uncertain question of whether the applicant had consented to or allowed the sale or use. Its object was to require the inventor to see to it that he filed his application within two years from the completion of his invention, so as to cut off all question of the defeat of his patent by a use or sale of it by others more than two years prior to his application, and thus leave open only that question of priority of invention. The evident intention of Congress was to take away the right (which existed under the act of 1836) to obtain a patent after an invention had for a long period of time been in public use without the consent or allowance of the inventor; it limited that period to two years, whether the inventor had or had not consented to or allowed the public use. The right of an inventor to obtain a patent was in this respect narrowed, and the rights of the public as against him were enlarged, by the act of 1839. The language of § 24 of the act of 1870, now § 4886 of the Revised Statutes, is to the same effect, and carries out the policy inaugurated by the act of 1839. It Page 123 U. S. 275 allows a patent to be granted only for an invention which was not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to the application for the patent, subject to the defense of abandonment within such two years, which is also the requirement of § 61 of the same act, while § 37 of that act requires that a person, in order to have the right to use and sell without liability a specific thing made or purchased prior to the application for the patent shall have purchased it of the inventor or constructed it with his knowledge and consent.
Views are to be found in decisions of circuit courts not in harmony with the construction we have thus put upon § 7 of the act of 1839. That construction was upheld in the very full opinion given by Judge Love, one of the judges who sat in the present case in the circuit court. 16 F. 387. It was indicated as the proper construction in the opinion of this Court in Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 97 U. S. 134, which was the case of a patent issued under the act of 1839, and where this Court, speaking by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, said in regard to that act,
"An abandonment of an invention to the public may be evinced by the conduct of the inventor at any time, even within the two years named in the law. The effect of the law is that no such consequence will necessarily follow from the invention's being in public use or on sale, with the inventor's Page 123 U. S. 276 consent and allowance at any time within two years before his application, but that if the invention is in public use or on sale prior to that time, it will be conclusive evidence of abandonment, and the patent will be void."