Brown v. Lapham

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Brown v. Lapham

27 F. 77, 23 Blatchf. 475, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2043

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 1, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 27 F. 77 (Brown v. Lapham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Lapham, 27 F. 77, 23 Blatchf. 475, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2043 (circtsdny 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The defendants appear to have been licensees of the plaintiff under his patent No. 264,854, dated September 26, 1882, for an improvement in stylographic pens, and afterwards to have repudiated the license and continued their infringement in defiance of the patent. The plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction. On this motion the defendants have filed affidavits tending to show that a manufacturer for the plaintiff of another style of pen, and his own workmen, devised this improvement for the plaintiff, and that they were the inventors of it, although the plaintiff got the patent for it. The plaintiff relies upon the estoppel of the defendants to deny the validity of the patent growing out of the license and the operating under it by them. There is no fair question but that a licensee under a patent is estopped to deny its validity on any question arising out of that relation between the parties. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289. It does not follow that lie will be always estopped because be lias stood in that relation. When he stands out from under the license, and claims nothing from it, and does nothing more under it, with full knowledge to the licensor of his position, he would appear to be at as full liberty to contest the patent as any one. In this case, taking and operating under the license would appear to be sufficient evidence of acquiescence to warrant this injunction without any previous adjudication, if the patent was unchallenged. As it is, the plaintiff must stand upon the validity of his patent, and maintain, it against this attack. On cross-examination of these witnesses, and the whole evidence when put in, this attack may not amount to any[78]*78thiüg decisive. As it is, upon this question as submitted, the affidavits raise sufficient' doubts about the patent to stand in the way of granting this motion now. Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wheeler, J.

The defendants appear to have been licensees of the plaintiff under his patent No. 264,854, dated September 26, 1882, for an improvement in stylographic pens, and afterwards to have repudiated the license and continued their infringement in defiance of the patent. The plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction. On this motion the defendants have filed affidavits tending to show that a manufacturer for the plaintiff of another style of pen, and his own workmen, devised this improvement for the plaintiff, and that they were the inventors of it, although the plaintiff got the patent for it. The plaintiff relies upon the estoppel of the defendants to deny the validity of the patent growing out of the license and the operating under it by them. There is no fair question but that a licensee under a patent is estopped to deny its validity on any question arising out of that relation between the parties. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289. It does not follow that lie will be always estopped because be lias stood in that relation. When he stands out from under the license, and claims nothing from it, and does nothing more under it, with full knowledge to the licensor of his position, he would appear to be at as full liberty to contest the patent as any one. In this case, taking and operating under the license would appear to be sufficient evidence of acquiescence to warrant this injunction without any previous adjudication, if the patent was unchallenged. As it is, the plaintiff must stand upon the validity of his patent, and maintain, it against this attack. On cross-examination of these witnesses, and the whole evidence when put in, this attack may not amount to any[78]*78thiüg decisive. As it is, upon this question as submitted, the affidavits raise sufficient' doubts about the patent to stand in the way of granting this motion now. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. 77, 23 Blatchf. 475, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-lapham-circtsdny-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack