is excluded, and it will expire on the last hour of the same day and month, seventeen years after its issue. Its term is unrestricted by that of any other patents, although the invention described in one patent may be so far dependent on those protected by others as to be incapable of use without them, and thus the public may be debarred from the free employment of any until all the patents have expired.2 The term of a design patent has a different limitation, such patents being granted for three and a half, seven, or fourteen years, as the inventor may elect. § 626. Effect of Clerical Errors in Letters-Patent. Mere clerical errors in the language of a patent do not affect its validity nor imperil the rights of the patentee. A mistake in his Christian name, or of a single letter in his surname, is of no consequence if he is otherwise sufficiently described; and the same liberal construction prevails in reference to other immaterial defects.1 Where such mistakes occur through the fault of the Patent Office, they are corrected on the record at the request of the patentee. Errors upon material points must be cured by an amendment of the patent by a re-issue or disclaimer. § 625. That a patent expires on the last hour of the same month and day, seventeen years after its issue, see Johnson v. McCullough (1870), 4 Fisher, 170. 2 That separate patents for different inventions, having separate dates, will each expire at the end of its own term, though neither invention is capable of use without the others, see McKay v. Dibert (1881), 19 O. G. 1351; 5 Fed. Rep. 587. But see McKay v. Jackman (1882), 20 Blatch. 466; 22 O. G. 85; 12 Fed. Rep. 615. That where a patent having been issued with its term limited by that of a foreign patent is not accepted by the patentee, and a new patent is then granted for seventeen years, the new patent will run from the date of its issue, not from that of the former patent, see Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson C. R. Co. (1885), 23 Fed. Rep. 593; 32 O. G. 519. § 626. 1 That a mistake in the Christian name of the patentee does not affect the patent, if he is otherwise sufficiently pointed out, see Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co. (1874), 1 Bann. & A. 177; 6 O. G. 34; 10 Phila. 227. That one erroneous letter in the name of the patentee may be of no consequence, see Bignall v. Harvey (1880), 18 O. G. 1275; 4 Fed. Rep. 334; 18 Blatch. 353. § 627. Recording of Letters-Patent: Copies of the Records. All letters-patent are recorded, with their specifications, in books kept for that purpose in the Patent Office.1 The record of a patent, like that of every other instrument which the law requires to be recorded, is constructive notice of its contents to all parties subsequently becoming interested in the invention, and is binding throughout the world.2 After the patent is recorded, its record, with its specifications, drawings, model, and all other documents relating to the case, are open to general inspection in the Patent Office. No private individual is permitted to make copies or tracings from the files and records of the Office; but certified copies may be obtained by any one who civilly requests them, upon payment of the lawful fees. These copies have the same weight, as evidence in any controversy in the courts or Patent Office, as would be given to the originals themselves.4 § 628. Patented Articles to be Stamped. The law requires that every patentee and his assigns and legal representatives, and all other persons making or vend § 627. 1 That the grant of a patent is not complete, nor does any title pass, until it is recorded, see Ex parte Osgood (1885), 33 O. G. 1265. That a title by the grant of letterspatent is a title of record, and no delivery is necessary to make it good, see Ex parte Osgood (1885), 33 0. G. 1265. ? That the record of a patent and its title is notice to all the world, see National Car Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car & Mfg. Co. (1884), 19 Fed. Rep. 514; 28 O. G. 1007. That the record of an instrument, which the law does not require to be recorded, is no notice of anything to any person, see Hamilton v. Kingsbury (1879), 17 Blatch. 264; 17 O. G. 147. That where some papers not required to be recorded are recorded and others are not, a person who acts upon those recorded in ignorance of the others is bound by the latter as if they were known, see Hamilton v. Kingsbury (1879), 17 Blatch. 264; 17 O. G. 147. See also § 785 and notes, post. 3 In Boyden v. Burke (1852), 14 How. 575, Grier, J.: (583) "These records being in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Patents, it is his duty to give authenticated copies to any person who shall demand the same, as soon as he conveniently can, on payment of the legal fees. Where there is a right on the one side, and a corresponding duty imposed on the other, a refusal to perform such duty, on the reasonable request of the party entitled to demand it, will subject the officer to an action." That copies of the records in the Patent Office are evidence, see Brooks v. Jenkins (1844), 3 McLean, 432. See also §§ 1015–1017, and notes, post. That an incorrect transcript from the Patent Office may be corrected by a new transcript, see Brooks v. Jenkins (1844), 3 McLean, 432. ing any patented article for or under them, shall give sufficient notice to the public that such article is patented.1 This notice may be given by marking the article itself with the word "patented," together with the date of the patent, or where this is impracticable by affixing to the article, or to the package in which it is enclosed for the market, a label containing the same word and date.2 A failure to comply with this requirement prevents the owner of the patent, in any suit for its infringement, from recovering other than nominal damages against the defendant, unless he can affirmatively prove that in some manner practically equivalent to this the defendant has received notice that his acts were an infringement of the patent, and after such notice has continued in his violation of the plaintiff's rights.* § 628. That the duty of marking patented articles as "patented" devolves upon the manufacturer, see Wilson v. Singer Mfg. Co. (1879), 9 Bissell, 173; 4 Bann. & A. 637; 16 O. G. 1091. That the object of the statute requiring patented articles to be stamped is to secure the public right to use unpatented articles, and prevent imposition under the claim that the articles have been patented, see Nichols v. Newell (1853), 1 Fisher, 647. That this statute is to be strictly construed, see Wilson v. Singer Mfg. Co. (1879), 9 Bissell, 173; 4 Bann. & A. 637; 16 O. G. 1091; United States v. Morris (1866), 2 Bond, 23; 3 Fisher, 72. 2 That where the mark cannot be put on the article itself it may be placed on the package, see Sessions v. Romadka (1884), 28 O. G. 721; 21 Fed. Rep. 124. 3 That unless the evidence shows that the statute has been complied with only nominal damages can be recovered for infringements, see McComb v. Brodie (1871), 1 Woods, 153; 5 Fisher, 384; 20. G. 117. That this statute applies to suits in equity as well as at law, see New York Pharmical Association v. Tilden (1883), 21 Blatch. 190; 23 O. G. 272; 14 Fed. Rep. 740. That the failure to stamp prevents recovery of damages, but is no bar to an injunction either preliminary or perpetual, see Goodyear v. Allyn (1868), 3 Fisher, 374; 6 Blatch. 33. That Sec. 13, act March 2, 1861, does not require that the plaintiff's bill in equity aver that his articles were stamped, see Goodyear v. Allyn (1868), 3 Fisher, 374; 6 Blatch. 33. That to prevent a recovery of actual damages by reason of Sec. 13, act March 2, 1861, it must appear either from the bill or the proofs that the patentee has made or sold articles under the patent, see Goodyear v. Allyn (1868), 3 Fisher, 374; 6 Blatch. 33. 4 In New York Pharmical Association v. Tilden (1882), 14 Fed. Rep. 740, Wallace, J. (741) "Patentees are therefore required to give 'sufficient notice to the public' that the article is patented, . . . 'together with the day and year the patent was granted,' by stamping or labelling the article. It is a fair interpretation to hold that when any equivalent notice has been given, the defendant has been 'duly notified.' As § 629. Stamping Patented Articles by Infringers Prohibited. As the complement of the foregoing rule, the law forbids any person, other than the patentee and those who claim or practise the invention under the protection of the patent, to mark on any article made, used, or sold by him the name or imitation of the name of its true patentee, without obtaining his consent or that of his assigns or legal representatives. It also prohibits every one, except with the consent of the true patentee or his assigns or legal representatives, from marking any patented article with the words "patented," "patentee," or "letters-patent," or any word of similar import, with intent to imitate or counterfeit the mark of the real owner of the patent. The object of the first provision the sufficient notice prescribed includes a specification of the time when the patent was granted, it is reasonable to conclude that any notice, verbal or written, that includes this information, will suffice." 23 O. G. 272 (272); 21 Blatch. 190 (191). That notice otherwise given is equivalent to a mark on the articles themselves, in its effect on the right to substantial damages, see McComb v. Brodie (1871), 1 Woods, 153; 5 Fisher, 384; 2 O. G. 117. That under Sec. 4900 no recovery of substantial damages can be had while articles were unstamped unless notice is given or knowledge is possessed by the infringer, and even then he is liable to pay substantial damages only for infringements committed with knowledge or after notice, see Allen v. Deacon (1884), 21 Fed. Rep. 122; 10 Sawyer, 210. § 629.1 In Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Haish (1879), 9 Bissell, 141, Blodgett, J. (142) "I am very clear that the defendant has no right, upon the admitted facts in the case, to mark his goods with any words or terms indicating that they are manufactured under complainant's patent. He has the right, and it is his duty, to mark his goods with his own patent-mark; but this does not give him the right to put upon the goods any indicia showing that they are made under another man's patent or a patent which he does not own and has no right to use. Several reasons occur to me why he should not be allowed to do this. In the first place, the owner of a patent has the right to regulate the quality of goods bearing the patent-mark. The value or a patent to its owner may largely depend upon the quality of goods manufactured under it. By manufacturing and selling a poor article purporting to be made under complainant's patent the value of the patent itself may be seriously impaired and the complainant damaged. In the second place, the public would be imposed upon and led to believe that they were purchasing a genuine article made by the patentee or under his patent. This reason applies the more forcibly because the law makes it the duty of a patentee, or those manufacturing goods under a patent, to mark his goods with the word 'patented,' with the date of the patent; and persons purchasing such goods with the belief that they were made and vended by the patentee, or those acting under his license, might be liable for an of the statute is to protect the patentee and his assignees or licensees against the fraudulent and tortious imitation of his name upon an article apparently made under the monopoly created by his patent. The object of the second is to protect them against the intentional proximate representation of their patent-mark by an infringer. These wrongful acts tend to depreciate the value of the patent by casting doubts upon the scope of the invention, or by enabling the infringer to throw on the market inferior articles under the patent-mark, and thereby destroy the confidence of the public in the utility of the invention. The law cannot permit its own requirement of the patentee to be thus turned into a weapon against him, and hence attaches to these acts a penalty distinct from that which the wrong-doer would incur by a mere infringement. § 630. Stamping Unpatented Articles Prohibited. A third provision of the statute forbids the marking or affixing to any unpatented article the word "patent," or any word importing that the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public. The object of this provision is to prevent fraudulent impositions upon the community at large.1 The fact that an article is patented is an indication to the public of its merit, and tends to promote its sale and use; and the unauthorized mark is thus a false pretence by which the purchaser is liable to be deceived. The marking of an article is also a notice to the public that its manufacture, use, and sale are under the protection of a patent, and cannot be engaged in without the license of the patentee; and if this notice be untrue, the public are fraudulently restricted in the enjoyment of their natural rights. Fraud being thus the gist of the offence forbidden, the penalty is not incurred unless the marking is performed with the intention to deceive.2 To action of infringement by the owner of ented" was intended to prevent fraud, 2 In Walker v. Hawxhurst (1867), 5 |