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.
WHERE MATERIAL WRITTEN BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON 43
to his licensor.55 Nor is the licensee of one of the coauthors a proper party to an action brought by one coauthor against the other.56 It has also been held that
55 Pusey v. Miller (1894), 61 Fed. (C. C.) 401. “In Dunham v. Railroad Co., 2 Ban. & A. 327, 7 Biss. 223, Fed. Cas. No. 4151, it was said by Judge Drummond that, where a party owning less than the whole of the thing patented makes a grant or license under the patent, it would seem the better rule to hold, if there is any liability at all, that he shall be answerable to the others, rather than the other patentees shall look to the grantee or licensee. In Curran v. Burdsall, supra (20 Fed. 837), the court held that, if one of several joint patentees assigns to a third party, the estoppel upon the assignor must work a license to the assignee to use the patent, and the joint owners of the patent must look to the one who assigns, for an accounting. The rule deducible from the authorities would seem to be that the license of one or more of several owners in common of a patent confers a right as against all, and that the remedy of the other tenants in common, if they have any, is by a suit for an account for what
ever may have been received by them. In other words, the licensee of a patent held by two or more co-owners is liable to his licensor only, and not to the other co-owners, for license fees or royalties, unless it is otherwise stipulated in the license.”
Klein v. Beach (1916), 232 Fed. (D. C.) 240; aff’d 239 Fed. (C. C. A.) 108; Balance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Enameling and Stamping Co. (1901), 108 Fed. (C. C.) 77; Blackledge v. Weir (1901), 108 Fed. (C. C. A.) 71; De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Mfg. Co. (1876), 66 N. Y. 459.
56 Dunham v. The Indianapolis R. R. Co. (1876), 7 Bissell, 223. “What is the position of patentees with reference to their right to use the thing patented? The patentees are tenants in common of the right. One of them has no superiority of right over the other. One of them can manufacture and use the article pattented without the consent of the others; that is, each has the same right, although one may own a greater share of the thing patented than the other. The