We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
38
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
not, however, grant an exclusive right, as each has as good a right as the other to make use of the common prop
created by some contract modifying the rights which belong to the tenants in common as such. [De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Mfg. Co. (1876), 66 N. Y. 459; Clum v. Brewer (1855), 2 Curt. 506.]”
It was held in this case, as well, that the complaint was bad because it did not allege that the defendant had not received a license from any co-owner. That allegation is essential when there is more than one owner.
Clum v. Brewer (1855), 2 Curtis C. C. 506. “One tenant in common has as good right to use and to license third parties to use the thing patented, as the other tenant in common has. Neither can come into a court of equity and assert a superior equity, unless it has been created by some contract modifying the rights which belong to them, as tenants in common.”
Pusey v. Miller (1894), 61 Fed. (C. C.) 401. In this case where a patent was owned by several parties the court held: “Where a patent belongs to several persons in common, each co-owner can assign his share, and sue for an infringement, and can also work the patent himself,
give licenses to work it, and sue for royalties payable to him for its use, and is entitled to retain for his own benefit, whatever profit he may derive from the working, although he may be liable to account for what he receives in respect of the licenses. 1 Lindley Partn. 62; Sheehan v. Railroad Co. (Eng.), 16 Ch. Div. 59; Mathers v. Green (Eng.), L. R. 1 Ch. App. 29; Clum v. Brewer (1855), 2 Curt. 506; Fed. Cas. No. 2909; Curran v. Burdsall (1883), 20 Fed. (D. C.) 837; Aspinwall Manufacturing Co. v. Gill (1887), 32 Fed. (C. C.) 697; De Witt v. Manufacturing Co. (1876), 66 N. Y. 462; Gates v. Fraser, 9 111. App. 628; Hall, Pat. Est. 75.”
Blackledge v. Weir (1901), 108 Fed. (C. C. A.) 71. This case gives a careful review _ of the American and English cases on the subject and reaches the same conclusion as the above cases.
Wood, C. J., said: “On principle, therefore, there can be no accountability on the part of a part owner of an invention to other owners for profits made by the exercise of his individual right, whether it be in the manu