representative and delegate in Congress; one copy to each of eight public libraries to be designated by each senator, representative and delegate; and two copies to the library of Congress; and also copies to such foreign governments, libraries and learned societies as the commissioner of patents may designate: Provided, that copies shall be sold at the cost of printing, and all sums received from such sale shall, on or before the first day of each month, be paid into the treasury.

SEC. 493. The price to be paid for uncertified printed copies of specifications and drawings of patents shall be determined by the commissioner of patents, within the limits of ten cents as the minimum and fifty cents as the maximum price.

Statute Revised-March 24, 1871, ch. 5, § 2, 17 Stat. 3.

SEC. 494. The commissioner of patents shall lay before Congress, in the month of January, annually, a report, giving a detailed statement of all moneys received for patents, for copies of records or drawings, or from any other source whatever; a detailed statement of all expenditures for contingent and miscellaneous expenses; a list of all patents which were granted during the preceding year, designating under proper heads the subjects of such patents; an alphabetical list of all the patentees, with their places of residence; a list of all patents which have been extended during the year; and such other information of the condition of the patent office as may be useful to Congress or the public.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 9, 16 Stat. 199.

Prior Statutes—July 3, 1832, ch. 162, § 1, 4 Stat. 559.—March 3, 1837, ch. 45, § 14, 5 Stat. 194.-July 20, 1868, ch. 177, § 7, 15 Stat. 119.

SEC. 495. The collections of the exploring expedition, now in the patent office, shall be under the care and management of the commissioner of patents.

Statute Revised-August 4, 1854, ch. 42, § 8, 10 Stat. 572.

SEC. 496. All disbursements for the patent office shall be made by the disbursing clerk of the Interior Depart

ment.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 69, 16 Stat. 209.

Prior Statutes-March 3, 1837, ch. 45, § 14, 5 Stat. 194.-March 3, 1869, ch.

121, § 1, 15 Stat. 294.

TITLE XIII.

CHAPTER SEVEN.

SEC. 629. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction, as follows:

*

*

*

Ninth. Of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States.

Statute Revised—July 8, 1870, ch. 230, §§ 55, 106, 16 Stat. 206, 215. Prior Statutes-February 21, 1793, ch. 11, § 5, 1 Stat. 322.-February 15, 1819, ch, 19, § 1, 3 Stat. 181.-July 4, 1836, ch. 357, § 14, 5 Stat. 123.

This section does not enlarge or alter the powers of the court over the subject-matter of the bill or the cause of action. It only extends its jurisdiction to parties not before falling within it. Before this provision was adopted it had been held that a citizen of one State could not obtain an injunction in the circuit court for a violation of a patent right against a citizen of the same State, as no act of Congress authorized such suit. This section removed that objection and gave the jurisdiction, although the parties were citizens of the same State. But in the exercise of the jurisdiction in all cases of granting injunctions to prevent the violation of patent rights, the court is to proceed according to the course and principles of courts of equity in such cases. Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine 441; s. c. 1 Robb 477; Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454; s. c. Pet. C. C. 322; s. c. 1 Robb 68, 243; Day v. Newark Manuf. Co., 1 Blatch. 628.

The jurisdiction thus conferred upon the circuit courts in patent cases in equity exists independently of the local laws of the State, and is the same in its nature and extent as the equity jurisdiction in England, from which it was derived. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatch. 480.

There is a broad distinction between the jurisdictional right to take cognizance of a complaint and a denial of the relief which the complainant asks. Although the relief invoked may be refused, it does not follow that it is because the court cannot inquire into the merits of the cause and adjudge it accordingly. Want of equity does not imply a defect of jurisdiction. But it is only when the court is without power to pass upon the subject-matter of the complaint, or to grant the relief sought, that its jurisdiction may be challenged. McMillan v. Barclay, 5 Fish. 189; s. c. 4 Brews. 275.

A bill in equity cannot be maintained against an infringer for a naked account of profits and damages. Such relief is ordinarily incidental to some equity which gives the patentee a right to invoke the jurisdiction of

a court of equity. Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; s. c. 21 O. G. 1112; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 349 n.; contra Perry v. Corning, 6 Blatch. 134; Dibble v. Augur, 7 Blatch. 86.

A bill for an account will lie where the accounting is such that it cannot readily be had before a jury. Vaughan v. East Tenn. Railroad Co., 1 Flippin 621; s. c. 11 O. G. 789; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 537.

In order to maintain a suit in equity for an account of profits there must be actual profits resulting to the infringer susceptible of computation or estimation of which the patentee can be deprived and with which the infringer can be charged as trustee. If from the character of the invention there can be nothing in the nature of profits of which the patentee can be deprived there is no basis for charging the infringer with receiving profits for his benefit and nothing for which he can be called upon to account. Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Saw. 280; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 27.

If the recovery against a corporation must be confined to the value of a licence fee, then a bill cannot be maintained in equity after the expiration of the patent. Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Saw. 280; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 27.

If a bill is filed against a corporation, it does not present a case for discovery, as an independent ground of equitable jurisdiction, for the officers are all competent witnesses, who may be called upon to testify in a court of law. Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Saw. 280; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 27; contra, Vaughan v. Railroad Co., 1 Flippin 621; s. c. 11 O. G. 789; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 537.

A patentee cannot maintain a bill in equity for an account of profits and damage after the expiration of the patent. Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; s. c. 21 O. G. 1112; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 349 n.; Sayles v. Richmond F. & P. R. R. Co., 16 O.G. 43 ; s. c. 3 Hughes 172; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 239; Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 4 Saw. 280; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 27; Campbell v. Ward, 12 Fed. Rep. 150; Haward v. Andrews, 12 Fed. Rep. 786; s. c. 23 O. G. 533; contra, Nevins v. Johnson, 3 Blatch. 80; Howes v. Nute, 4 Cliff. 173; s. c. 4 Fish. 263; Gordon v. Anthony, 16 O. G. 1135; s. c. 16 Blatch. 234; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 248; Atwood v. Portland Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 283; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 533; McComb v. Beard, 30. G. 33; s. c. 6 Fish. 254; s. c. 10 Blatch. 550; Vaughan v. East Tenn. Railroad Co., 1 Flippin 621; s. c. 11 O. G. 789 ; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 537; Sayles v. Dubuque & S. R. R. Co., 5 Dill. 561; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 219; Stevens v. Kans. Pac. R. R. Co., 5 Dill. 486.

If a patentee files a bill in equity only a few days before the expiration of the patent it will be dismissed. Burdell v. Comstock, 15 Fed. Rep. 393. An assignee of a claim for profits and damages cannot maintain a bill in equity after the expiration of the patent. Haward v. Andrews, 12 Fed. Rep. 786; s. c. 23 O. G. 533.

If a patentee assigns his interest in a patent he cannot maintain a bill in equity to recover the profits that accrued from an infringement prior to the assignment. Spring v. Domestic S. M. Co., 22 O. G. 1445; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 446.

If the patent expires between the time of filing the bill and the hearing, an account can be ordered and other relief granted, although an injunc tion to restrain the further use cannot issue on account of the expiratiou of the patent. Imlay v. Railroad Co., 1 Fish. 340; s. c. 4 Blatch. 227; Sickles v. Gloucester Manuf. Co., 1 Fish. 222; s. c. 3 Wall. Jr. 186; Smith v. Baker, 5 O. G. 496; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 117 ; s. c. 19 I. R. R. 149; Wood Paper Co. v. Glens Falls Co., 4 Fish. 561; s. c. 8 Blatch. 513; Jordan v. Wallace, 5 Fish. 185; s. c. 8 Phila. 165; Gottfried v. Moerlein, 14 Fed. Rep. 170.

If the defendant dies while the action is pending the complainant may revive it against the personal representative, in order to obtain an account of the profits. Smith v. Baker, 5 O. G. 496; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 117 ; s. c. 19 I. R. R. 149; Atterbury v. Gill, 13 O. G. 276; s. c. 2 Flippin 239; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 174 ; contra, Draper v. Hudson, 6 Fish, 327 ; s. c. 1 Holmes 208; s. c. 3 0. G. 354.

Where the complainant seeks for an account and discovery, a court of equity has jurisdiction of a bill to recover damages for breach of a contract relating to a patent. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatch. 151; s. c. 8 O. G. 773; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 152.

If a party is compelled to go into a court of equity to obtain a discovery in a case where the ascertainment of damages is complicated and intricate, and an action at law cannot be adequately tried without great difficulty, owing to the nature of the account or other circumstances, the court, after a discovery, will proceed to a decree on the merits. Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 11 O. G. 501; s. c. 14 Blatch. 109; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 506.

A party is at liberty to select his forum, although he seeks a recovery of money only, and neither seeks nor requires a discovery or other ancillary or further relief. No language could be employed to declare the jurisdiction of the courts at law and in equity more completely concurrent or which would more clearly indicate that the party aggrieved may resort to either. Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatch. 195; Anthony v. Carroll, 9 O. G. 199; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 195; contra, Sanders v. Logan, 2 Fish. 167.

A court of equity has jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the use of a patented invention, and for an account of profits by the infringer, although an action at law may be maintained to recover damages. McMillan v. Barclay, 5 Fish. 189; s. c. 4 Brews. 275.

66

An action which raises a question of infringement is an action arising "under the law," and one who has a right to sue for the infringement may sue in the circuit court. Such a suit may involve the construction of a contract as well as the patent, but that will not oust the court of its jurisdiction. If the patent is involved, it carries with it the whole case. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205; s. c. 7 O. G. 964; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatch. 151; s. c. 8 O. G. 773; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 152. Whenever a contract is made in relation to patent rights which is not provided for and regulated by an act of Congress, the court will not, under this section, have any jurisdiction over a dispute arising out of it. Good