Court Opinion

ID: 9418074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:07:26.901299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:54.897532
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom concurs Mr. Justice Day,
dissenting.
My brother Day and myself dissent. The reasons, however, which impel him are broader than those influencing me. In gefieral terms the Kansas statute, which the court now upholds, compels one selling a patent right in any county of the State of Kansas to file with the clerk of such county an authenticated copy of the patent, together with an affidavit as to the genuineness of the patent, and as to other matters. The statute, moreover, exacts that where a note is given for the purchase price of a patent right, there shall be inserted in the note a statement that it is given for a patent right, presumably to deprive the note of the attributes of commercial paper. We both think that the requirements as to recording the patent and affidavit are void, because repugnant to the power delegated to Congress by the Constitution on the subject of patents, and because in conflict with the legislation of Congress on the *358same subject. And, for like reasons, my brother Day is also of the opinion that the provision is void which exacts an insertion in a note given for the sale of a patent right of the fact that it was given for such sale. This latter provision; in my opinion, the State had the power to make as a reasonable police .regulation not repugnant to the authority as' to patents delegated to Congress by the Constitution or the legislation which Congress has enacted in furtherance thereof.