Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

Record Details:

Title:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Date:
1916
Publisher:
New York : Press of Fremont Payne
Volume:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Leaf #:
00025
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 14, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

19 Exhibit B. (2) That there is no proof of joint infringement as alleged. (3) That the patent is invalid. 55 Mel\^lle Church and George F. Scull, Counsel for Appellant. Edmund Wetmore, John B. Stanchfield and Oscar W. Jeffery, Counsel for Appellees. Augustus X. Hand, District Judge : It was held by this Court in the case of Victor Talking Machine Company vs. Straus, 230 Fed., 419, that a license to use a patented talking ma 56 chine upon payment of an initial royalty to cover the life of the patent and upon condition that the licensee purchase all sound records to be used Avith the machine from the licensor was valid, even though the license provided that title to the machine should pass to the licensor upon the expiration of the patent if the terms of the license had been observed. The present case ditters from that case because here the title to the machine at once passed by the sale of the projecting machine to the 72nd Street Amusement Company. We think this case comes within the doctrine of Bauer vs. O^Don 57 nell, 229 U. S., 1, rather than that of Dick vs. Henry y 224 U. S., 1. This is especially true since the enactment of the so-called Clayton Bill, which provides : 'That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, w^ares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, wiiether patented or unpatented, for use, con