Case Name: CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, Inc., v. GENERAL ANILINE WORKS, Inc.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1938-09-23
Citations: 99 F.2d 276
Docket Number: No. 6600
Parties: CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, Inc., v. GENERAL ANILINE WORKS, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 276–279

Head Matter:
CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, Inc., v. GENERAL ANILINE WORKS, Inc.
No. 6600.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Sept. 23, 1938.
William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del. (Drury W. Cooper, Paul Kolisch, and Seward Davis, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., and George F. Scull, of New York City, for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge. , .. , _
Writ of certiorari denied 69 S.Ct. 249, 83 L.Ed. —.

Opinion:
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below The Chemical Foundation, Incorporated, filed a bill against General Aniline Works, Inc., to compel it to assign to the plaintiff patents Nos. 1,637,-023, No. 1,699,432, and a divisional application No. 192,780. The patents were granted to Herz and by him assigned to the defendant.
The exhaustive opinion of the trial Judge, reported in D.C., 20 F.Supp. 509, states in detail all the facts, statutes and contentions made and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. After careful consideration, we find ourselves in full accord with the decree of the court dismissing the bill and as a further opinion by this court would be but an effort to clothe in different language what has been stated by the trial Judge, we refrain from needless repetition and affirm the court's decree and limit ourselves to a brief statement of the reasons constraining us to do so.
As stated by the Judge, "the crux of the case is what, if anything, was seized by the Alien Property Custodian on March 22, 1919". As we view it, it is the grant of a patent for an invention that creates property and unless some trust or contract relation exists, the conception of an invention, so long as it is not patented is not property which can be levied on or seized and taken in execution. It follows, therefore, that so long as the inventor himself, or by his constituted agent, does not seek a patent and so long as he is under no trust or contract obligation, the mere conception of an invention cannot be seized and sold, and this because as stated in 48 Corpus Juris 15, "an inventor has a natural right separate from, and independent of, any patent grant to make, use, and vend his invention, and to deprive the public of the benefits of his invention by keeping it a secret."
Now that was the situation here. An attempt was made by one Brown to take out a patent in the name of Herz, but as he had no authorization from Herz, such attempt was futile. The Brown application was not only unauthorized by Herz, but it did not comply with the statutory requirement of his signature. In the former regard the court said: "The Brown application was filed without the authority of Herz. The only power of attorney given to Brown by Herz was to file the original application Serial No. 13,944, which became abandoned on September 9, 1917. Therefore the application by Brown was a nullity in law."
It follows, therefore, that so far as the Brown application is concerned no property in Herz's invention was acquired by the Chemical Foundation or its assignor, the Alien Property Custodian. In that regard the defendant-appellee contends-—and rightly so—that: "Herz has never been under any duty, either-to the Government or to appellant, to do any act which would make good appellant's claimed title. He does not occupy the position of an assignor nor of a trustee for the benefit of appellant. So much of his property as was taken, was taken by forcible seizure. As to that, he was helpless. But such seizure put him under no obligation to give the Government something which it had not taken." (Italics ours.)
So holding, and without discussing the further defences set up by the defendantappellee, we now affirm the decree dismissing the bill.