Whether the plaintiff was the first inventor of the machine for which he had obtained a patent, is a question for the decision of the jury; but they must be satisfied, that he is so in reference to all the world. Aliter, in England, the statute of James I. speaking only of new manufactures, within the realm.1 Whether the improvement made by the defendant, in the machine invented by the plaintiff, is in principle, or in form, and proportion, is a question for the decision of the jury. If the improvement is in the principle, the inventor of the improvement has as much right to use the original invention, as the inventor has to use the improvement. An improvement in form, or proportions, gives no right. Whether the specification has disclosed the whole truth, relative to the inven tion, or discovery? Whether there has been a concealment with a view to deceive? Is the concealment material? Could an artist, after the patentright has expired, construct such a machine, by reference to the specification? These are questions for the decision of the jury. Reutgen v. Kanowrs and Graunt. 1 Wash. After an agreement between an original inventor of a machine, and the inventor of an improvement upon the machine, that they would mutually use the same, the patent should have issued in the names of both inventors; and the plaintiff, by taking out a patent in his own name, committed a fraud, and is to be considered as a trustee for the defendant. Such conduct may not entitle the defendant to a nonsuit, but the jury may give the plaintiff no more than nominal damages. What will be considered as a license to use the invention, for which a patent has been obtained. A plaintiff, in an action for a violation of a patent-right, may recover damages against one of two defendants, although the evidence given did not apply to both, for all torts are joint and several; and a plaintiff may recover damages against one defendant, although the other be acquitted. Aliter, in actions on contract. THIS was an action to recover damages for the invasion of the plaintiff's patent-right to a machine for rounding [169] iron. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, Kanowrs, was a farmer, and had on his farm, a common tilt, or hammer and anvil, worked by water. The plaintiff, a German, and poor, informed Kanowrs that he had invented a machine for rounding iron; but, from want of funds, had not been able to bring his theory to practice. He proposed to Kanowrs, to convert his common tilt into such a machine, and that he would work at it for the benefit of Kanowrs, for a certain sum for each ton of such iron which he should make. Having disclosed his plan, which was to use hammers of different concaves, Kanowrs objected to that, and proposed, instead of different hammers, the use of swedges. After some disagreement, whose plan should be adopted, a compromise took place, by agreeing first to try the swedges, which was done, and found to answer so well that they were never altered. The plaintiff, after working a year or two for Kanowrs at this tilt, in 1797, took a lease of it, (together with a part of the farm,) for three years; in which was a covenant, on the part of the plaintiff, to deliver back, at the end of the term, the tilt, with every thing belonging to it, in as good condition as he had received it. This was accord Reutgen v. Kanowrs and Graunt. 1 Wash. ingly done; and the plaintiff, having thus acquired the means, he removed from Kanowrs'; and, in 1801, erected a tilt, precisely like the one he had left. The defendant, Kanowrs, then rented the old tilt to the other defendant, Graunt, who has continued to use it ever since. It was proved that the plaintiff and Kanowrs were to be in partnership in the benefits of this discovery, and were to obtain a patent in their joint names. But the plaintiff took it out in his own name, in the year 1796; and it is not accounted for, how the defendant's name was omitted. One witness said, that he had, since the erection of this machine, seen imported bolts, which appeared to him to have been rounded with a similar machine. The cause was argued by Dallas and Sergeant, for plaintiff, and by Messrs. Ingersoll and Charles J. Ingersoll for defendants. The objection to the plaintiff's re covery were, that the machine * used by defendant [* 170] was different in principle from that mentioned in the plaintiff's specification; that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to say, the plaintiff was not the original inventor, but had brought it with him from Germany; that he could not, at any rate recover, as there was a partnership agreement between the parties, sufficient to constitute the plaintiff a trustee for defendant, Kanowrs; that the lease from Kanowrs to plaintiff was an acknowledgment of his right to the machine in question, the only one which it was pretended the defendants had used; and, lastly, that there being no evidence that Kanowrs had ever used the machine himself; this action, being joint against Kanowrs and Graunt, the plaintiff cannot recover, though he has proved it to have been used by Graunt. The demand of the plaintiff was, under the Act of 17th April, 1800, for three times the value of the damages sustained. Reutgen v. Kanowrs and Graunt. 1 Wash. WASHINGTON, J., charged the jury. Your first inquiry is, whether the plaintiff was the original inventor of the machine mentioned in his patent and specification. One witness has stated, that he has seen imported bolts, since those made by the plaintiff, which seemed to have been made with the same machine. Whether the invention is of European origin, and imported here by the plaintiff, or has, since the erection of his machine, been carried to Europe, is a question most proper for your determination. It is only necessary for me to state, that, if the invention was brought over, that is, if it appears that the plaintiff was not the original inventor, in reference to other parts of the world as well as America, he is not entitled to a patent. This point has been decided otherwise in England, in consequence of the expression of the statute of James I., which speaks of new manufactures within the realm. * Your second inquiry is, have the defendants, or either of them, used a machine similar to the one mentioned in the plaintiff's patent and specification. The specification states the parts to be, a strong platform, of a given form, [* 171] with two upright posts for a hammer to move in, and to be operated by a cog-wheel, connected with the handle of the hammer; the force, water, or any thing else; corresponding concaves in the hammer and anvil. The machine used by the defendant, Graunt, is of that description; but in addition, swedges are used. The question is, is the defendant's improvement of swedges, an improvement on the principle, or the form, or proportions of the plaintiff's machine; if the first, he has as much right to use his improvement, as the plaintiff has to use his original invention. If otherwise, and the defendant has used the original invention, thus altered, it is a violation of the plaintiff's right. The next inquiry is closely connected with the last. Does the specification contain the whole truth, relative to the dis |