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

Record Details:

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 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.

29 ily ascertained ; and to proceed with a use of the machine that was not authorized was to infringe the patent. The record clearly shows that the terms of use which the prosecution of such an inquiry Avould have developed would have been ^^only the payment of a royalty or rental to the licensor while in use,''' as specifically provided in petitioner's license agreement with the Precision Machine Company, the manufacturer and seller of the machine purchased (page 1081, fol. 3241). VT. This case, therefore, presents for the determination of this Court the following questions of great public concern, viz. : 1. Whether or not a corporation which is a mere patent-holding company, and that neither makes, uses nor sells the patented article, but only licenses others to make and sell such, article under restrictions as to use, is "engaged in commerce," within the meaning of the Clayton Act and of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of which it is predicated. 2. Whether or not the restrictions as to the use of a patented article imposed upon a purchaser at the time of the purchase of such article, recognized by this Court as valid and enforcible in Henry vs. Dick, 224 U. S., 1, are still valid and enforcible under the later decision of this Court in Bauer vs. O'Donnell, 229 U. S., 1.