any right to use the machine in the manner pointed out in the patent right. The purchaser acts at his own peril. (Sawin v. Guild, 1 Gall., 485.)

13. ASSIGNEES OF ALIEN INVENTORS take and hold the patent, which may be issued to them with all the privileges belonging to American patentees. The clause in § 15 of the act of 1836, (5 Stats. at Large, 123,) requiring the invention to be put on sale in a certain time, applies only to alien patentees. (Tatham v. Lowber, 2 Blatchf., 49.) To the contrary, (Tatham v. Loring, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 207.)

14. FORM OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST IN AN INVENTION BEFORE THE ISSUE OF LETTERS PATENT.—

In consideration of $1, to me paid by Ephraim G. Hall, of Cleveland, Ohio, I do hereby sell and assign to said Ephraim G. Hall all my right, title, and interest in and to a certain invention in plows, as fully set forth and described in the specification which I have prepared [if the application has been already made, say "and filed"] preparatory to obtaining letters patent of the United States therefor. And I do hereby authorize and request the Commissioner of Patents to issue the said letters patent to the said Ephraim G. Hall, as my assignee, for the sole use and behoof of the said Ephraim G. Hall and his legal representatives.

Witness my hand this sixteenth day of February, 1868. [5-cent revenue stamp.]

J. F. CROSSETTE.

15. FORM OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST IN LETTERS PATENT.

In consideration of $500, to me paid by Nathan Wilcox, of Keokuk, Iowa, I do hereby sell and assign to the said Nathan Wilcox all my right, title, and interest in and to the letters patent of the United States, No. 41,806, for an improvement in locomotive head-lights, granted to me July 30, 1864, the same to be held and enjoyed by the said Nathan Wilcox to the full end of the term for which said letters are granted, as fully and entirely as the same would have been held and enjoyed by me if this assignment and sale had not been made.

Witness my hand this tenth day of June, 1869. [5-cent revenue stamp.]

HORACE KIMBALL.

16. FORM OF ASSIGNMENT OF AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE LETTERS PATENT AND EXTENSION THEREOF.

In consideration of $1,000, to me paid by Obadiah N. Bush, of Chicago, Illinois, I do hereby sell and assign to the said Obadiah N. Bush one undivided fourth part of all my right, title, and interest in and to the letters patent of the United States, No. 10,485, for an improvement in cookingstoves, granted to me May 16, 1856; the same to be held and enjoyed by the said Obadiah N. Bush to the full end of the term for which said letters patent are granted, and for the term of any extension thereof, as fully and entirely as the same would have been held and enjoyed by me if this assignment and sale had not been made.

Witness my hand this seventh day of January, 1869.

[5-cent revenue stamp.]

JOHN C. MORris.

17. FORM OF ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL GRANT BY AN ASSIGNEE.

In consideration of $1,000, to me paid by William H. Dinsmore, of Concord, New Hampshire, I do hereby grant and convey to the said William H. Dinsmore the exclusive right to make, use, and vend within the State of Wisconsin and the counties of Cook and Lake, in the State of Illinois, and in no other place or places, the improvement in corn planters for which letters patent of the United States, dated August 15, 1867, were granted to Leverett R. Hull, and by said Hull assigned to me December 3, 1867, by an assignment duly recorded in liber X3, p. 416, of the records of the Patent Office, the same to be held and enjoyed by the said William H. Dinsmore as fully and entirely as the same would have been held and enjoyed by me if this grant had not been made.

Witness my hand this nineteenth day of March, 1868.

18. LICENSES NEED NOT BE RECORDED.-The patentee

may convey separate rights under his patent to make or to use or to sell his invention, or he may convey territorial or shop rights which are not exclusive. Such conveyances are mere licenses, and need not be recorded. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.)

A conveyance transferring a less or different interest in the patent than either the interest in the whole patent, or an undivided part of such whole interest, or an exclusive sectional interest, is a mere license, and need not be recorded. (Potter v. Holland, 1 Fish., 327; see also Stevens v. Head, 9 Vt., 177; Brooks v. Byam, 2 Story, 541.)

19. CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF LICENSE.-A contract of license is like every other contract, and depends upon a fair construction of the acts of the parties. (Bell v. McCullough, 1 Fish., 380.) As to the principles upon which a license to manufacture under a patent should be construed, and their application to a license in particular cases, see Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story C. C., 122; S. C., 1 West. Law Jour., 465; 7 Law Rep., 276; Day v. Cary, 1 Fish., 424; Day v. Stellman, ib., 487. H assigned to M, A & Co. all his right and interest under his patent in twenty-three counties in Ohio, including that in which the defendants' manufactory was carried on. M, A & Co. were to pay ten dollars for each machine made and sold by them, while H reserved the right of sending machines of his own manufacture into the territory named in the contract. Held, that this paper was not an assignment of the interest of H in the patent within the territory named, but a mere license. (Hussey v. Whitely, 2 Fish., 120; see also Potts v. Jameson, 15 Barb., 315.) A license to use vulcanized india-rubber

for coating cloths, for the purpose of japanning, marbling, and variegated japanning, is limited to the particular kinds of goods mentioned, and conveys no right to use the rubber for coating cloths for any other purpose, (Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Company, 2 Fish., 499;) but the public cannot be compelled to notice or regard agreements between the patentee and his licensee as to the limitation of the use of articles made by them. (Metropolitan Washing-Machine Company v. Earle, 2 Fish., 203.) The purchase of a license forms no bond of allegiance to the patentee or an estoppel to the licensee from averring or proving any defense in an action for the infringement of the patent which any other person might use, (Burr v. Duryee, 2 Fish., 275;) but when the defendants were licensees of the plaintiff, and stamped every article made with the name and date of the patent, the act was a public acknowledgment that the articles were made under the patent, notwithstanding their protest that it should not be so considered. (Jones v. Vankirk, 2 Fish., 586.) A covenant between a patentee and his licensees that they will not manufacture certain articles may be valid as between the parties, but it does not run with the article manufactured like a covenant as to land. Such a contrivance to destroy competition may be valid, but the covenant binds only the parties to it. If a stranger purchase the product from one licensed to use the process, he need look no further, and may use it for his own purposes, without inquiring for or regarding any private agreement of licensees not to compete with one another. (Metropolitan Washing-Machine Company v. Earle, 2 Fish., 203.) Where a railroad fifty-eight miles long, having a license to use a patented improvement, subsequently acquired by con

not extend to

(Emigh v. Chi

Where a per

solidation and change of name two hundred and ten miles more, held, that the license did or protect the newly acquired portion. cago, &c., Railroad Company, 2 Fish., 387.) son agreed with a patentee to pay him a certain sum on every patented article manufactured by him, the patentee brought his action for money had and received, it was held that the jury might infer the receipt of money from the fact of the sale of the article, and that judgment should be rendered for the plaintiff as upon an executed contract. (Stanley v. Whipple, 2 McLean, 35.)

20. ASSIGNEE OF LICENSE.-A license to use a patented machine may be assigned, it not being a mere personal privilege, (Woodworth v. Curtis, 2 Wood. & Minot, 527; Wilson v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 2;) but a mere license to a party, without having his assigns, or equivalent words to them, showing that it was meant to be assignable, is only a grant of a personal power to the licensee, and is not transferable by him to another. (Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How., 216.) Where D had an exclusive license to use the patent of G for a particular purpose, covenanting not to use it for other purposes, and to pay a specified tariff for such use, and C took an assignment of such license, it was held, that C took the license subject to the obligation to pay the specified tariff on what he should make under it. (Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Company, 3 Blatchf., 449.)

21. LICENSE RELATIVE TO SINGLE MACHINES.-The limitation of the number of machines to be made or used under a patent is not inconsistent with the grant of an exclusive right in the patent within such territory. (Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 162.) Where one licensed