to run a patented machine sells such machine, the license to run does not necessarily pass with the machine. (Wilson v. Stolley, 4 Mc Lean, 275.) The right of a licensee to use a patented machine may be assigned to a third person. A machine and the right to use it is personal property rather than a mere patent right, and has all the incidents of personal property, making it subject to pass by sale. (Woodworth v. Curtis, 2 Wood. & Minot, 524.) The right to use a machine, to be constructed according to a certain specification, involves the right to make or cause to be made the machine thus permitted to be used. (Ib.) A right or license to use one machine during the term of the patent does not mean any particular machine then sold, but has reference to what must be considered, therefore, one machine in number at one time. A second machine may be run. if the first one wears out, or is destroyed by fire, or is constructed erroneously, or is disused entirely for want of repair. (Ib.; Wilson v. Stolley, 4 McLean, 275.) The right to construct a patented machine is distinct from the right to use it, the latter necessarily implying the right to repair, and also to purchase, when the one in use is worn out or destroyed. (Bicknell v. Todd, 5 Mc Lean, 236.) Where the only right to use a patent was one which resulted from the purchase of a machine, such right is coextensive with the existence of the machine, and expires with it. (Day v. Union Rubber Company, 3 Blatchf., 488.) A grant of a right by a patentee to make and use a patented machine within a term for which it has been granted will give the purchaser of machines from such grantee the right to use the machine patented as long as the machine itself lasts; nor will this right to

use a machine cease because an extension of the patent, not provided for when the patentee made his grant, has since been allowed, and the machine sold has lasted and is used by the purchaser within the term of time covered by this extension. (Bloomer v. Millinger, 1 Wall., 340.)

22. OTHER CONTRACTS.-A party has no authority to grant licenses under a patent upon a mere agreement with the patentee to assign such patent. Before such a party can grant licenses, the patent must be actually assigned. (Day v. Hartshorn, MS., 21, 1854.) While the exclusive rights of a patentee are specially guarded from intrusion, the contracts which he makes to share them with third persons are interpreted and enforced in the same 'manner as other legal engagements. (Morse v. O'Reilly, 6 Penn. Law Jour., 501; 2 Whart. Dig., 414.) Contracts in relation to a patented machine or implement are regulated by the laws of the several States, and are subject to State jurisdiction. (Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How., 99.) An agreement made between B and C and others, providing for the settlement of various matters, the discontinuance of certain suits, and also as to the manufacture of a certain article, as follows: "That the said parties may each hereafter manufacture and vend spikes of such kind and character as they see fit, notwithstanding their conflicting claims to this time," must be construed with reference to the situations of the parties to it. As B claimed that he had the exclusive right, under his patent, to make such spikes, which right the defendant, C, was infringing, but defendant, C, claimed that he did not infringe such patent, but made such spikes by an entirely different method: held, that such an agreement did not give C a license to make such spikes after B's patent, but only a

right to make them by the same process or machinery he had been before using. (Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How., 193; reversing, S. C., 1 Blatchf., 467.) Where a patentee granted to V the exclusive right to construct and use and vend, within a certain territory, ten planing, tongueing, and grooving machines, and the grant declared that V was to enjoy an exclusive use of the patent within said territory, limited to said ten machines, and afterward the patentee granted to K the exclusive right under the patent of making, using, and vending within the same territory molding planing machines: held, that the grant first made to V conveyed the entire interest of the patentee, and that the subsequent grant to K was void. (Ritter v. Serrell, 2 Blatchf., 379.) To an action of covenant upon an agreement, which granted a license to make and vend a patented article, the licensee agreeing to keep an account of the articles manufactured and to pay a fixed price per pound on those sold, it is no defense that the patent is invalid. (Wilder v. Adams, 2 Wood. & Minot, 329.)

23. LICENSE; SHOP-RIGHT.—

In consideration of $50, to be paid by the firm of Simpson, Jenks & Co, of Huntsville, Alabama, I do hereby license and empower the said Simpson, Jenks & Co. to manufacture, at a single foundery and machine shop in said Huntsville, and in no other place or places, the improvements in cottonseed planters, for which letters patent of the United States, No. 71,846, were granted to me November 13, 1868, and to sell the machines so manufactured throughout the United States to the full end of the term for which said letters patent are granted.

Witness my hand this 22d day of April, 1869.

[5-cent revenue stamp.]

JOEL NORCROSS.

24. LICENSE, NOT EXCLUSIVE, WITH ROYALTY.

This agreement, made this 12th day of September, 1868, between Morrison White, party of the first part, and the Uniontown Agricultural Works,

party of the second part, witnesseth: That whereas letters patent of the United States for an improvement in horse-rakes were granted to the party of the first part, dated October 4, 1867; and whereas the party of the second part is desirous of manufacturing horse-rakes containing said patented improvement; now, therefore, the parties have agreed as follows:

I. The party of the first part hereby licenses and empowers the party of the second part to manufacture, subject to the conditions hereinafter named, at their factory in Uniontown, Maryland, and in no other place or places, to the end of the term for which said letters patent were granted, horse-rakes containing the patented improvements, and to sell the same within the United States.

II. The party of the second part agrees to make full and true returns to the party of the first part, under oath, upon the first days of July and Jan

uary in each year, of all horse-rakes containing the patented improvements

manufactured by them.

III. The party of the second part agrees to pay to the party of the first part $5, as a license fee upon every horse-rake manufactured by said party of the second part containing the patented improvements; provided, that if the said fee be paid upon the days provided herein for semi-annual returns, or within ten days thereafter, a discount of fifty per cent. shall be made from said fee for prompt payment.

IV. Upon failure of the party of the second part to make returns, or to make payment of license fees, as herein provided, for thirty days after the days herein named, the party of the first part may terminate this license by serving a written notice upon the party of the second part; but the party of the second part shall not thereby be discharged from any liability to the party of the first part for any license fees due at the time of the service of said notice.

In witness whereof the parties above named (the said Uniontown Agricultural Works, by its president) have hereunto set their hands this day and year first above written.

[5-cent revenue stamp.] 54*

MORRISON WHITE.

UNIONTOWN AGRICULTURAL WORKS,

By JABEZ REYNOLDS, President.

25. ASSIGNMENTS OR TRANSFERS OF PATENTS SHOULD BE MADE BY DEED; that is, by a document or instrument in writing, on paper or parchment, and signed by the parties, sealed with their seals, and formally "delivered" as their "act and deed," like other deeds.

Assignments should contain such stipulations and provisos as the parties think desirable; they are in practice often restricted to the disposal of a share in the patent, such as a half, a third, a twentieth share, and so forth; but unless the deed stipulates how the patent is to be worked, it seems difficult to say what actual beneficial interest is thus conveyed, because coproprietorship in a patent does not seem to necessitate joint participation in profits. The proper course in such cases would appear to be to place the patent in trust, to be worked by the trustee or his agent for the benefit of all the creditors, in accordance with their respective shares.

26. PATENTEE MAY ASSIGN TO HIMSELF AND OTHERS.As since the property-law amendment act, 22 and 23 Vict., cap. 35, sec. 21, the proprietor of personal property may assign to himself, or herself, and others, if such an arrangement be deemed suitable, the patentee can make an assignment in that manner, with stipulations