Case Name: ELLIOTT-FISHER CO. v. UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-11-01
Citations: 176 F. 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELLIOTT-FISHER CO. v. UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 176
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
ELLIOTT-FISHER CO. v. UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
November 1, 1909.)
Patents (§ 95 ) — Persons Entitled to Patents — Assignees oe Inventors.
A patent may be issued to an assignee of an inventor tbrougb mesne assignments, provided they are first entered of record in tbe Patent Office.
LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 127; Dec. Dig. § 95. ]
In Equity. Suit by the Elliott-Eisher Company against the Underwood Typewriter Company. On motion by defendant respecting proofs.
Denied.
Robert Fletcher Rogers, for complainant.
Briesen & Knauth, for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
I find no authority for the proposition that patents may not .be issued to an assignee, who holds through mesne assignments from the inventor, provided such assignments are first entered of record in the Patent Office. So to hold would require a very strained and unreasonable construction of section 4895, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3385). That section leaves the discretion with the Patent Office, which may issue to the inventor or'to the as-signee ; and no doubt where there are conflicting assignments the office will avoid passing on questions of title by issuing to the inventor. But U docs not appear that the assignments in this case, which were re-'orcled before issue, were conflicting assignments.
Nor is there any difficulty about proving the assignments, .if notice í o produce and subpoena duces tecum fail to secure the originals, the copies recorded in the Patent Office would! be competent.
Motion to require complainant to prove them as part of his prima facie case is denied.