the licensee with those restrictions which the license or the law itself imposes on him. The licensee, under certain circumstances, has a right to repudiate the license and to recover back the license-fees which he has paid. He has a right to be defended by the licensor against infringers whose practice of the invention is injurious to his interests. He acquires rights also under the covenants in his license, whether express or implied, and to the estoppel by virtue of which he is protected against an assertion of the monopoly by the licensor in derogation of the privilege that his license has conferred. For a violation of any of these rights, and for any fraud or imposition of which the licensor is guilty in obtaining his submission to the patent, he has his remedy in an appropriate and effective form. § 852. General Division of the Subject of Wrongs and Remedies. This outline of the rights connected with inventions indicates the topics to which a discussion of wrongs and remedies must relate and the order in which they must be pursued. Hence we shall consider in the following pages : I. Wrongs against the owners of unpatented inventions. II. Wrongs against patentees. III. Wrongs between contracting parties. And in connection with each class of wrongs the remedies provided by the law for their redress. § 853. Remedies for Certain Wrongs Afforded by Federal Courts: for Other Wrongs by State Courts: this Distinction Preliminary. Before entering upon this discussion a collateral topic, affecting to a certain extent the details of each of these main topics, must, however, be examined. In the United States every person resides under two different governments, and is subject to two different systems of jurisprudence. His rights are protected by two distinct bodies of law, and his wrongs are redressed in the courts of two independent sovereignties. In reference to every group of wrongs and remedies the question, therefore, arises whether the wrongs invade the rights protected by the State or by the Federal law, and whether the remedies are to be applied by the Federal or by the local courts. This question is particularly important in connection with the rights in patented inventions, since some of these rights depend upon the laws of the United States, and others on the laws of individual States; and thus in instituting any action for a violation of these rights it must be first determined whether the cause is one of State or Federal jurisdiction. To avoid the discussion of this question in connection with each wrong and its remedy, the entire subject will be here considered in a preliminary chapter. e CHAPTER I. OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS OVER § 854. Federal Jurisdiction where Parties are Citizens of Differ ent States: this Jurisdiction not Exclusive. Courts derive their jurisdiction over actions either from the residence of the parties or from the subject-matter of the controversy. The Federal courts having no jurisdiction other than that conferred upon them by the Acts of Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, the State courts retain sole cognizance of all actions not thus specifically placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Jurisdiction has been bestowed upon the Federal courts in certain cases, on the ground of the residence of the parties, if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different States. In such cases the nature of the subject-matter of the controversy is of no importance.1 The rules which determine whether jurisdiction on this ground exists, being common to all wrongs and remedies, will not be here discussed, the reader having access to them in works particularly devoted to that subject. In the following examination of the other ground of jurisdiction it will be assumed that the citizenship of the parties to the controversy is the same. § 855. Federal Jurisdiction Exclusive over all Cases Arising under the Patent Laws. Jurisdiction, on the ground of subject-matter, has been vested in the Federal courts over all cases arising under the § 854. 1 That where the parties on tion, see Campbell v. James (1880), 18 one side of the controversy differ in citi- O. G. 1111; 2 Fed. Rep. 338; 18 Blatch. zenship from the parties on the other 92; 5 Bann. & A. 354. side, the Federal courts have jurisdic Patent Laws.1 This jurisdiction is exclusive, and hence no suit arising under the Patent Laws, whatever may be the residence of the parties, can fall within the cognizance of any local court.2 In any given case, therefore, the jurisdictional question is determined as soon as it is ascertained whether or not the case itself is included in the class above described. The line which divides this class from all that lie outside it is now clearly defined, both upon principle and by the concurrent decisions of the State and Federal courts. §856. Cases Arising under the Patent Laws are Cases Affecting the Monopoly Created by such Laws. The purpose and effect of the Patent Laws is to create and preserve a monopoly in the patented invention in favor of the patentee. They are not concerned with the invention as dis § 855. That the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Patent Laws, see Willis v. McCollin (1886), 38 O. G. 1017; Brown v. Texas Cactus Hedge Co. (1885), 64 Tex. 396; Page v. Dickerson (1871), 28 Wis. 694; Slemmer's Appeal (1868), 58 Pa. St. 155. That under the act of 1819 the jurisdiction of the Federal courts was not exclusive, see Burrall v. Jewett (1830), 2 Paige (N. Y.) 134; qualified by Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 132. 2 That the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over any controversy as to the patent right without regard to the citizenship of the parties, see Duke v. Graham (1884), 19 Fed. Rep. 647; Campbell v. James (1880), 18 O. G. 1111; 2 Fed. Rep. 338; 18 Blatch. 92; 5 Bann. & A. 354; Allen v. Blunt (1849), 1 Blatch. 480. That where the subject-matter confers jurisdiction any issue as to citizenship is immaterial, see Fischer v. Neil (1881), 6 Fed. Rep. 89; 19 O. G. 603. That the act of March 3, 1875, changed the law of 1789, and gave jurisdiction to the Circuit Court over all patent cases wherever the parties may reside, see Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. (1876), 10 O. G. 41; 13 Blatch. 375; 2 Bann. & A. 334. That the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over patent cases is not dependent on the amount involved, see St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling (1888), 127 U. S. 376; 43 O. G. 1350. That under the act of March 3, 1887, the $2,000 limitation does not apply to jurisdiction over patent cases, see Miller Megee Co. v. Carpenter (1887), 43 O. G. 1118. That the object of conferring jurisdiction over all patent cases on the Federal courts was to secure uniformity in the law on all points as to rights and remedies, see Read v. Miller (1867), 3 Fisher, 310; 2 Bissell, 12. That the Supreme Court will not reverse a decree for want of jurisdiction in the court below, if the court had jurisdiction, though on narrow grounds, when the bill was filed, and the defendant did not then except, see Clark v. Wooster (1886), 119 U. S. 322; 37 O. G. 1477. tinguished from the monopoly, nor with the mode and extent § 856. 1 That the Federal courts have no jurisdiction unless the rights of the patentee under the Patent Laws of the United States are directly in issue, see Teas v. Albright (1882), 22 O. G. 2069; 13 Fed. Rep. 406. That a patent matter, conferring ju- That the Federal courts do not have That the existence and validity of loid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vul- 2 That a question of contract con- That a bill to subject a patent to an execution does not present a case under the Patent Laws, see Ryan v. Lee (1882), 10 Fed. Rep. 917. |