Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Lowell v.

Gray and Osgood v. James, 67, | Langdon v. De Groot, 144, 284, 128, 138, 141, 205, 241, 247, 299,

426, 433. 389, 402, 411, 425, 426, 430. Lawrence v. Dale, 385.

Lewis v. Davis, 104, 137, 141, 401. Hall v. Gervas and Boot, 411, 421. Liardet v. Johnson, 247. Harrison v. Hogg. 391.

Livingston v. Van Ingen, 380, 458, Harmer v. Playne, 272, 285, 297, 460, 463, 465. 460, 461.

Lewis, 16, 110, 140, 142, Haworth v. Hardcastle, 450.

144, 162, 240, 249, 273, 284, 299, Hayne v. Maltoy, 350.

430, 432, 435, 440, 444. Heathcote ex parte, 327. Herbert v. Adams, 341, 342, 343, Macfarlane v. Price, 270, 281, 294. 384.

Makepeace v. Johnson, 64.
Hesse v. Stevenson, 320, 352, 355. Mauton v. Manton, 137, 404, 415.
Hicks v. Raincock, 457.

Manton v. Parker, 113.
Hill v. Thompson, 100, 109, 116, McNeven v. Livingston, 385.

134, 174, 186, 217, 238, 247, 270, Mellus v. Silsbee, 159, 190, 199. 375, 430, 434, 453, 455, 456. Moody v. Fiske, 116, 214, 215, 276, Hill v. Williamson, 456.

375, 376, 421. Hornblower v. Boulton, 79, 93, 98, Morrill v. Worthington, 343, 344, 235, 287.

345. Huddart v. Grimshaw, 80, 94, 133, Morris v. Huntington, 186, 187, 238, 411.

197, 205, 300, 421, 422, 423. Hunt v. Coffin, 470.

Newberry v. James, 287, 338, 339. Isaac v. Humpage, 457. Isaacs v. Cooper, 454.

Odjorne v. Amesbury, N. Factory,

211, 212. Jay v. Bond, 387.

Odiorne v. Winkley, 122, 240, 270, Jones v. Pearce, 112, 152, 168, 373. 435. Judkins v. Earle, 345.

Ogle v. Ege, 383, 452, 453.

Oldham v. Langmead, 424. Keplinger v. De Young, 365, King v. Arkwright, 174, 238, 247, Park v. Little & Wood, 108, 299, 284, 287, 470.

384. King v. Butler, 470.

Parsons v. Barnard, 379. King v. Cutler, 167, 425.

Pennock & Sellers v. Dialogue, King v. Daniel, 128.

185, 188, 197, 205, 407, 418, 419, King v. Dawes, 470.

420, 422, 431. King v. Else, 270, 273.

Pettibone v. Darringer, 403, 409. King v. Hadden, 129, 429. King v. Lister, 129.

| Reutgen v. Knowers & Grant, King v. Metcalf, 223, 227, 230, 235, 66–67, 164, 346. 253.

Rogers v. Abbot, 270, 454, 455. King v. Murray, 286.

Roworth v. Wilkes, 382.
King v. Peacock, 470.
King v. Russel, 421.

Savory v. Price, 239, 247.
King v. Wheeler, 80, 94, 95, 99, 223, Sawin v. Guild, 359.

227, 235, 240, 242, 267, 292, 429. Shaw v. Cooper, 70, 180, 203, 300, Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 231, 422. 238, 249, 384.

Smith v. Dickenson, 340, 342. Koops ex parte, 327.

Spieres v. Parker, 392.

Sullivan v. Redfield, 466. Walker v. Congreve, 127, 134, 455, Stearns v. Barrett, 62, 66, 68, 216, 469.

220, 321, 341, 403, 406, 424, Watson v. Bladen, 270, 367. 470.

Watson v. Pears, 327, 401.

Whitecburch v. Hide, 457. Taylor v. Hare, 348.

Whittemore v. Cutter, 101, 109, Tenant's case 63, 418.

122, 139, 164, 198, 205, 218, 224, Thompson v. Foreman, 455.

270, 275, 298, 299, 306, 315, 361, Thompson v. Knight, 142, 205. 366, 383, 408, 422, 431, 435, 438, Throckmorton v. Tracey, 392. 440, 441, 443, 447. Townsend & Grant v. Raymond, Whitney v. Carter, 103, 426. 300.

Whitney v. Fort, 417. Treadwell & Watson v. Bladen, Williams v. Williams, 7, 27, 467.

378, 407, 420, 422, 427, 428. Wood ex parte, 435, 470. Turner v. Winter, 112, 243, 247. Wood v. Zimmer, 190, 205, 247,

248, 284, 285, 289, 290, 404. 291. Tyler v. Tuel, 383.

Woodcock v. Parker, 106, 164,

270, 418. University of Oxford v. Richard

Yovatt v, Arnyard, 340.

son, 461.

LAW OF PATENT RIGHTS.

CHAPTER I..

Definition.

Patents are so called by abbreviation for letters patent, that is open (patentes) letters, a phrase applied to letters or writings addressed by the government, or by the sovereign, or at least by a superior authority, to individuals, as distinguished from letters sealed up or enclosed, and, like these latter, being directed to individuals, they are by this circumstance distinguished from proclamations addressed to the whole people. The expression patent thus substituted for letter patent, is applied to cases of making a grant, as of land, or some privilege, or giving a commission or authority, as in the cases of patents conferring some office. The word brevet, used in the French language in a corresponding sense, is applied to a commission or a grant of rank or office, as brevet of duke. So the French'expression for a påtent in our sense is brevet d'invention, or grant of invention; which confers on the person to whom the brevet is granted, the same privilege in respect to an invention, that is enjoyed under other brevets in respect to the office or rank or other thing to which it relates.

In English the dictionaries define a patent to be a writ granting an exclusive privilege. A writ (writing) is commonly used to signify a mandate or commission by the sovereign authority, and in this latter sense corresponds to the French term brevet, but it is not applied to mere grants, as of land, and it does not accordingly express the distinguishing characteristic of a patent, which is a grant rather than a commission, and does not partake at all of the nature of a mandate; since the grant of a privilege does not import a prohibition on all people not to infringe upon that privilege, any more than grant of a manor implies an injunction upon all other persons not to commit a trespass upon it. There is nothing of command essentially belonging to the instrument.

In respect to inventions, then, a patent is a grant by the state, of the exclusive privilege of making, using and vending, and authorizing others to make, use and vend, an invention. It is a monopoly of the invention. The monopoly may be unrestricted, in

1 Brevet de duc.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »