Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealpatent

willpatentappellantappellee

Related Cases

Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 539, 14 How. 539, 1852 WL 6732, 14 L.Ed. 532

Facts

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding the use of Woodworth's planing machine. Bloomer, claiming under Wilson, the assignee of Woodworth's patent, contested the rights of McQuewan, who claimed through mesne assignments. The central issue was whether the license granted to use the machine during the original patent term extended to the additional seven years granted by Congress in 1845. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to Bloomer's appeal.

Issue

Whether the licensee of a right to use the patented machine for the original term of the patent is entitled to continue the use of the same during the extension by Congress.

Whether the licensee of a right to use the patented machine for the original term of the patent, is entitled to continue the use of the same during the extension by Congress.

Rule

The extension of a patent by lawful authority revests in the patentee every right originally possessed by him, and unless the law contains a provision in favor of licensees or assignees, their right to use ends with the term of their license. The act extending the patent must be construed in conjunction with the general patent laws.

Thus it is clear that the extension of a patent by lawful authority revests in the patentee every right originally possessed by him, and that unless the law, by virtue of which it is extended, contains a provision in favor of licensees or assignees, their right to use ends with the term of their license.

Analysis

In applying the rule to the facts, the court noted that the act of Congress extending Woodworth's patent did not include any provision for the rights of licensees. Therefore, the rights of the assignees and licensees were considered to have terminated with the original patent term. The court referenced previous cases to support the conclusion that without explicit language in the extension act, the rights of the original licensees do not continue.

Applying, then, these principles to the act extending this patent, (February 26, 1845,) it will be seen that it contains no such provision as is to be found in the 18th section of the act of 1836; and that, therefore, in accordance with the opinion of all the judges, the entire right was reinvested in the patentee.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendants had the right to continue using the planing machines under the original license, despite the extension of the patent.

The court below were divided in opinion, and the bill was of course dismissed.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was McQuewan and the other defendants. The court found that the defendants, as assignees of the original patent, retained their rights to use the planing machines during the extended patent term. The court emphasized that the absence of a provision in the extension act for licensees meant that their rights were not preserved, thus allowing the defendants to continue their use without infringement.

The Circuit Court decided that the right of the appellees still continued, and upon that ground dismissed the appellant's bill.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252, 86 S.Ct. 335, 15 L.Ed.2d 304, 147 U.S.P.Q. 429

In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1769

ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553

Moore U.S.A., Inc. v. Standard Register Co., 229 F.3d 1091, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225

Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390, 46 S.Ct. 324, 70 L.Ed. 651