Mr Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the' Court.
This action wa§ brought by Grant and Townsend against E. and H. Raymond, to recover damages for an infringement of their right under a patent gfanted to- the plaintiff Joseph Grant, in April 1825. It recited that a former patent had been issued in August 1821, to the same person for the same improvement, “ which had'been cancelled, owing to the defective specification on which the same was granted.” The exclusive privilege given by the patent on which the suit is brought, is to continue fourteen years from the day on which the original was issued.
One of the pleas filed by the defendants, contained.the following averment: “ and the defendants aver that said specification does not correctly or accurately describe the improvement claimed by the said Joseph Grant as his invention, but said specification, and the drawings thereto annexed, áre altogether defective in this, among other things, namely: in said specification no proportion, sizes or distances are given, and the bigness or size of none of the principal parts of said machine is given in said specifications or drawings, but the same is wholly omitted; and in other particulars,, said specifications and drawings are wholly defective: and the defendants aver that said specification annexed to and making part of said letter's patent, with the drawings thereto annexed, do not contain a written description of his the said Joseph Grant’s invention and improvement aforesaid, and manner of using it, in such full, clear and exact terms, as to distinguish the same from all other things -before known, and so as to enable • any person skilled in the art of which said machine or improvement is a branch, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same; ánd that for the cause aforesaid, said letters patent are-void.”
The plaintiffs reply that they ought not to be barred,
“
because they say that the specification mentioned in the said last mentioned plea, does correctly and accurately describe the improvement claimed by the said Joseph Grant as his invent tion; and because they say further, that neither the said specification, nor the drawings thereto annexed, are defective in any of the particulars in that behalf alleged in the said last mentioned pl.ea, and this they pray may be inquired of by the country.” On this replication issue was joined.
At the trial the counsel for the defendants objected that the secretary of state had no power by law to accept a surrender of, and to cancel the said letters patent, or to inquire into or to decide upon the causes for so doing, or to grant said second patent for the same invention with an amended specification, for the unexpired portion of the term of fourteen years which had been granted by the first patent.
The court decided that such surrender might be.made when the defect arose from inadvertence or mistake; and without any fraud or misconduct on the part of the patentee; and that the secretary of state had authority to accept such surrender, and cancel the record of the patent, and to issue a new patent for the unexpired part of the fourteen years granted under .the old patent, in manner aforesaid. To which decision the counsel for the defendants excepted.
After adducing the testimony on which they relied to support their plea herein before stated, the counsel for the defendants moved the court to instruct the jury that if they found that the defendants had maintained and proved their averments in that respect, that they must find the same for the defendants; which instructions the court refused to. give, but instructed the jury that the patent would not be void on this ground, unless such defective or imperfect specification or description arose from design, and for the purpose of deceiving the public; to which opinion the counsel for the defendants also excepted.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and assessed their damages to three thousand two hundred and sixty-six .dollars sixty-six cents: the judgment on'which is brought .before this court by a writ of error.
The first question in the cause respects the power of the secretary of state to receive a surrender of a patent, cancel the record thereof, and issue a new patent for the unexpired part of the fourteen years for which the original had been granted. The court was of opinion that this might be done “ when the defect in the specification arose from inadvertence or mistake, and without any fraud or misconduct on the part of the patentee.”
The right of the patentee to surrender his patent has not been denied, but the plaintiffs in error insist that no power exists to grant a new patent for the unexpired term. The
words of the act, they say, do not confer this power. It cannot be exercised with its necessary guards by the department of State; andjncon venience of no inconsiderable magnitude might 'result to the public from its exercise. The secretary of state is, in the act of making out patents, a mere ministerial officer, and can exercise no power which is not expressly given.
It is undoubtedly true, that the secretary of state may be considered, in issuing patents, as a ministerial officer. If the prerequisites of the law be complied with, he can exercise no-judgment on the question whether the patent shall be issued. It is equally true that the act of congress contains no words; which expressly authorise the secretary to' issue a corrected patent, if the original, from some mistake or inadvertence in the patentee, should be found incompetent to secure the reward which the law intended to confer on him for his invention. The force of this objection, and of the argument founded on it is felt. If the new patent can be sustained, it must be on the general spirit and object of the law, not on its letter.
To promote the progress of useful arts, is the interest and policy of every enlightened government. It entered into- the views of the framers of our constitution, and the power “ to promote the progress of science, and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” is among those expressly given to congress. J-This subject was among the first which followed the organization of our government. It was taken up by, the first congress at its second session, and an act was passed authorising a patent to be issued to the inventor of. any useful art,&c. on his petition, “granting to such petitioner, his heirs, administrators or assigns, for any term not exceeding fourteen years, the sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, using, and vending to others to be used, the said invention or discovery.” The law farther declares that the patent “ shall be good and available to the grantee or grantees by force of this act, to all and every intent and purpose herein contained.” The emendatory act of 1793 contains the same language, and it eannot be doubted that the settled purpose of the United States has ever been, and continues to be, to confer on the authors of useful inventions an exclusive right in their inventions for the time mentioned in their patent. It is
the reward stipulated for the advantages derived by the public for the exertions of the individual, and is intended as a-stimulus to those exertions. The laws which are passed to give effect .to this purpose ought, we think, to be construed in the spirit in which they have been made; and to execute the contract fairly on the part of the United States, where the full benefit has been actually received: if this can be done without transcending the intention of the statute, or countenancing acts which are fraudulent or may prove mischievous. The public yields nothing.which it has not agreed to yield; it receives all which it has contracted to receive. The full. benefit of the discovery, after its enjoyment by the discoverer for fourteen years, is preserved; and for his exclusive enjoyment of it during that time the public faith is pledged. That sense of justice and of right which all feel, pleads strongly against depriving the inventor of the compensation thus solemnly promised, bécausc he. has committed an inadvertent or innocent mistake.
. If the mistake should be committed in the department of state, no' one would say that it ought not to.b.e corrected. All would admit that a new patent, correcting the error, and which would secure to the patentee the benefits which the law intended to secure, ought to be issued. And yet the act does not in terms authorises new patent, even Jn this case. Its emanation is not founded on the words of the law, but is indispensably necessary to the faithful execution of the solemn promise made by the United States. Why should not the same step be taken for the same purposé, if the mistake has been innocently committed by the inventor himself?
The counsel for the plaintiffs in error have-shovvn'very clearly that the question of inadvertence or mistake is a'judicial question, which cannot be decided by the secretary of state. Neither can he decide those judicial questions on which the validity of the first patent depends. Yet he issues it without inquiring into them. Why may he not, in like manner, issue the second patent also ? The correct performance of all those preliminaries on which the validity of the original depends, are always examinable in the court in which a suit" for its violation shall be brought. Why may not those points on which the validity of the amended patent depends; be examined
béfore the same tribunal? In the ease under consideration those questions were not supposed by the circuit court to have been decided in the department of state, but were expressly submitted to the jury. The rightfulness of issuing the new patent is declared to depend on the fact, that “ the defect in the specification arose from inadvertence or mistake, and without any fraud or misconduct on the part of the patentee.” The jury were of course to inquire into the fact. The condition on which the right to issue the patent depended, could be stated to them, for no other purpose.
It has been said that this permission to issue a new patent on a reformed specification, • when the first was defective through the mistake of the patentee, would change the whole .character of the act of eongress.
We are not convinced of this. The great object and intention of the act is to secure to the public the advantages to be derived from the discoveries of individuals, and the means it employs are the compensation made to those individuals for the time and labour devoted to these discoveries, by the exclusive right to tpake, use and sell, the things discovered for a limited time. ■ That which gives complete effect-to this object arid intention, by employing the same means for the correction of inadvertent error which are directed in the first instance, cannot, we think, be a departure from the spirit and character of the act.
An objection much relied on is, that after the invention has been brought into general use, those skilled in the art or science with which it is connected, perceiving the variance between the specification and the machine, and aváiling themselves of it, may have constructed, sold and used1 the machine without infringing the legal rights of the patentee, or incurring the penalties of the law. The new patent would retro-act on them, and expose them to penalties to which .they were not liable when the act was committed.
- This objection is more.formidable in appearance than in reality. It is not probable that the defect in the specification can be so apparent as to be perceived by any but those who examine it for the purpose of pirating the invention. They are not entitled to much favour. But the answer to the objection is, that this defence is not made in this case; and the
opinion of the circuit court does not go so far as to say that such a defence would not be successful. That question is not before the court," and is not involved in the opinion we are considering: The defence when true in fact may be sufficient in law, notwithstanding the validity of the new patent.
It has been also argued that the new patent must issue on the new specification, and on the application which accompanies it. Consequently, it will not be true that the machine was
“
not known or used before the' application.”
Rut the new patent, and the proceedings on which it issues, have- relation to the original transaction. The time of the privilege still runs from the date, of the original patent. The application may be considered as appended to the original application] and, if the new patent is valid, the law must be considered as satisfied if the machine was .not known or used before that application.
It has been urged that the public was put into possession of the machine by the open sale and use of it under the defective-specification, and'- cannot be deprived of it by the grant of a new patent. The machine is no longer the subject of a patent.
This would be perfectly true, if the second patent could be considered as independent of the first. But it is in no respect so considered'. The communication of the discovery to the public has been made in pursuance of law, with the intent to exercise a privilege which is the consideration paid by the public for the future use of the machine. If, by an innocent mistake, the instrument-introduced to secure this privilege fails in its object, the public ought not to avail itself of this mistake, and to appropriate the discovery without paying the stipulated consideration. The attempt would be disreputable in an individual, and a court of equity might interpose to restrain him.
It will not be pretended that this question is free from difficulty. But the executive departments, it is understood, have acted on the construction adopted by the circuit court, and have considered it as settled. We would not willingly disregard this settled practice in a case where we are not satisfied it is contrary to law, and where we are satisfied that it is required by justice and good faith.
We will now proceed to the second exception.
The plea-assigns the particular defect supposed to exist in the specification, and then proceeds to avei’, in the very words of the act, that it “does not contain a written description of his the saiij Joseph Grant’s invention and improvement aforesaid, and manner of using it, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to distinguish the same from all other things before known, and so as to enable any person skilled in the art, &c. to make and°use the same,” &c.
The plea- alleges, in the words of the act, that the pre-requisites to the issuing a patent had not been complied with.
If the matter alleged in this plea constituted no bar to the action, the plaintiffs might have demanded, and have submitted the question of law to the court. But they have chosen to deny the facts alleged in the plea, and to aver in their replication “that neither the specification nor the drawings thereto annexed, are defective in any of the particulars in that behalf alleged.” Issue was joined upon this replication, and it is that issue which the jury were sworn to try.
At the trial the counsel for the defendants, after the evidence was closed, asked the court, in substance, to instruct the jury that if,they should be of opinion that the defendants had maintained and proved the facts alleged- in their plea, they must find for the defendants. The court refused this instruction. Ought it to have been refused? If in the opinion of the jury the defendants have proved and maintained every fact alleged in the plea on which the issue they are sworn to try is joined, ought not the jury to find that issue for the defendants? Is not this required by their oaths? The conclusion, “and that for the cause aforesaid, said lettex-s patent are void,” is an inference of law from the facts previously alleged; not the allegation of a distinct fact to be submitted to the jury.
The court proceeded to instruct the jury “ that the- patent would not be void on this ground, unless such defective or. imperfect specification ér description arose from design or for the purpose, of deceiving the public.’’
Now this “
design,”
this “
purpose of deceiving the public,”
constituted no part of the issue. The defendants had not alleged it, and could not be supposed to come prepared to prove it. A verdict for them would not imply it. -The instruction is
understood to direct a verdict which finds in fact that thedescription or specification is not defective; and this verdict against the evidence is to be found because that defect “ arose not from design, or for the purpose of deceiving the public.”
■ But we must inquire whether the instruction, independent of its departure from the issue, be consistent with law. It is “that the patent would not be void unless,” &e.
The.fifth section of the act gives the party aggrieved an action for the infringement of his patent right. The sixth provides “ that the defendant in such action shall be permitted to plead the general issue, and give this act in evidence, and to give in.evidence any special matter, of which notice in writing may have been given to the plaintiff or his attorney thirty days before trial, tending to prove that the specification filed by the plaintiff does not contain the vyhole truth relative to his discovery, or that it contains more than is necessary to produce the described effict; which concealment or addition shall fully appear to have been made for the purpose of deceiving the public; or that the thing thus secured,” &c. “ in either of which cases judgment shall be rendered for the defendant with costs, and the patent shall be declared void. ”
Courts did not, perhaps, at first distinguish clearly between a defence which would authorise a verdict- and judgment in favour of the defendant ;n the particular action, leaving the plaintiff free to use his patent, and to bring other suits for its infringement; and one Which, if successful, would re,quire the court to enter a judgment not only for the defendant in the particular case, but one which declares the patent to be void. This distinction is now'well settled.
If the party is content with defending himself, he may either plead specially; or plead the general issue, and give the notice required by the sixth section of any special matter he means to use at the trial. If he shows that the paténtee has failed in any of those pre-requisites on which the authority to issue the patent is made to depend, his defence is complete. He is entitled to the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court. But if, not content with defending himSelf, he seeks to annul the patent, he must proceed in. precise conformity to- the sixth section. If he depends on evidence “tending to prove |hat the specification filed by the plaintiff
does not contain the whole truth relative to his discovery, or that it contains more than is necessary to produce the described effect,” it may avail him so far as respects himself, but will hot justify a judgment declaring the patent Void, unless such
“
concealment or addition shall fully appear to have been made for the purpose of deceiving the public;” .which purpose must be found by the jury to justify'a'judgment-of
vacatur
by the court. The defendant is permitted to proceed according to the sixth section, but is not prohibited from proceeding in the usual manner, so far as respects his defence; except that special matter may not be given in evidence on the general issue unaccompanied by the notice which the sixth section- requires. The sixth section is not understood to control the third. ' The evidence of fraudulent intent is required only in the particular case, .and for the particular purpose stated in the sixth section.
This instruction was material if the verdict ought to have been for the defendants, provided the allegations of the plea were sustained, and if such verdict would have supported a judgment in their favour;.although the defect in the specification might not have arisen from design, and for the purpose of deceiving the public. That such is the law we are entirely satisfied. The third section requires, as preliminary, to .a patent, a correct specification and description of the thing discovered. This is necessary in order to give the public, after the privilege shall expire, the advantage for which the privilege is allowed, and is the foundation of the power to issue the patent. The necessary consequence of the ministerial character in which the secretary acts, is that the performance-of the pré-requisites to a patent must be examinable in any suit brought upon it. If the case was of the first impression, we should come to this conclusion; but it is understood to be settled.
The act of párliament concerning monopolies contains an exception on which the grants of patents for inventions have issued in that country. The construction of so much of that exception as connects the specification with the patent, and makes‘the validity, of the latter dependent on the correctness of the former, is applicable, we think, to proceedings under the third- section of the American act. The English books
are full of cases in which it has been held that a defective specification is a good bar when pleaded to, or a sufficient defence when given in evidence on the general issue, on an action brought for the infringement of a patent right. They are very well summed up in Godson’s Law of Patents, title Specification: and also in the chapter respecting the infringement of patents: also in Holroyd on Patents, where he treats of the specification, its form and requisites. It is deemed unnecessary to go through the cases, because there is no contrariety in them, and because the question is supposed to be substantially settled in this country. Pennock and Sellers v. Dialogue, 1 Peters, 1, was not, it is true, a case of defect in the specification or description required by the third section, but one in which the applicant did not bring himself within the provision of the first section, which requires that before a patent shall issue the petitioner shall allege that he has invented a new and useful art, machine, &c. “
not known or used before the
application.”
This pre-requisite of the first section, so far as a failure in it may affect the validity of the patent, is not distinguishable from a failure of the pre-requisites of the third section.
On the trial evidence was given to show , that the patentee had permitted his invention to be used before he took out his patent. The court declared its opinion to the jury, that if an inventor makes his discovery public, he abandons the inchoate right to the exclusive use of the invention. “ It is possible,” added the court, “that the inventor may not have intended to give the benefit of his discovery to the public.” “But it is not a question of intention,” “ but of legal inference, resulting from the. conduct of the inventor, and affecting the interests of the public. It is for the jury to say whether the evidence brings this case within the principle which has been stated. If it does, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to a verdict.”
The jury found a verdict for,-the defendants, an exception was taken to the opinion, and the judgment was affirmed by this court.
This case affirms the principle that a failure on the part.of the patentee, in those pre-requisites of the act which authorise a patent, is a bar to a recovery in an action for its infringement; and that the validity of this defence does not depend on
the invention of the inventor, but is a legal inference upon his conduct.
Upon these authorities and this reasoning we are of opinion that the instruction was erroneous, and that the judgment ought to be reversed and the cause remanded. One of the judges composing the majority thinks, that the direction would have been erroneous on a plea properly framed upon the third section of the act, and averring the facts of a defective specification, and a non-compliance with other requisitions of that section, for that such a plea would be a good bar and defence to the action: but, in his view, the plea relies upon the facts as avoiding the patent entirely, and avers it to be void. He thinks, however, that the replication puts the facts, and not the. point whether void or not, in issue; and that the direction of the court was erroneous, since it was equivalent to a declaration, that if all the facts were proved, the issue ought not to be found for the defendants, unless the imperfection of th.e specification arose from a-fraudulent design.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause-remanded with directions to issue a venire facias de novo.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United' States for the southern district of New York, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court- that the said circuit court 'erred in instructing the jury
“
that the patént .would not be void on this grodnd, unless such defective or imperfect specification or description arose from design,- and for the purpose of deceiving the public.” Whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be; and the same is hereby reversed, and .that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.