Elliott-Fisher Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.

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

Elliott-Fisher Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.

176 F. 372, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5783

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 F. 372 (Elliott-Fisher Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.) 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

Elliott-Fisher Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co., 176 F. 372, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5783 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I find no authority for the proposition that patents may not .be issued to an assignee, who holds through mesne assignments from the inventor, provided such assignments are first entered of record in the Patent Office. So to hold would require a very strained and unreasonable construction of section 4895, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3385). That section leaves the discretion with the Patent Office, which may issue to the inventor or'to the as-signee ; and no doubt where there are conflicting assignments the office will avoid passing on questions of title by issuing to the inventor. But [373]*373U docs not appear that the assignments in this case, which were re-'■orcled before issue, were conflicting assignments.

Nor is there any difficulty about proving the assignments, .if notice í o produce and subpoena duces tecum fail to secure the originals, the copies recorded in the Patent Office would! be competent.

Motion to require complainant to prove them as part of his prima facie case is denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I find no authority for the proposition that patents may not .be issued to an assignee, who holds through mesne assignments from the inventor, provided such assignments are first entered of record in the Patent Office. So to hold would require a very strained and unreasonable construction of section 4895, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3385). That section leaves the discretion with the Patent Office, which may issue to the inventor or'to the as-signee ; and no doubt where there are conflicting assignments the office will avoid passing on questions of title by issuing to the inventor. But [373]*373U docs not appear that the assignments in this case, which were re-'■orcled before issue, were conflicting assignments.

Nor is there any difficulty about proving the assignments, .if notice í o produce and subpoena duces tecum fail to secure the originals, the copies recorded in the Patent Office would! be competent.

Motion to require complainant to prove them as part of his prima facie case is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. 372, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-fisher-co-v-underwood-typewriter-co-circtsdny-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack