Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator Co.

184 F. 84, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5702
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided September 29, 1910·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

HOET, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It seems to me at least doubtful whether the point argued is raised by the de[85]*85murrer. It does not appear on the face of the bill that the reservations in the instrument of transfer dated November 21, 1907, were reservations of rights covered by the reissued patent. If not, the instrument, so far as the reissued patent was concerned, was undoubtedly an assignment. But, assuming the reservations to have been covered by the reissued patent, I think that the instrument, although called a license, was in legal effect an assignment. It was a grant of the patent, with the reservation of a license to the grantor. Littlefield v. Perry, 88 U. S. 205, 22 L. Ed. 577; Frankfort v. Pepper (C. C.) 26 Fed. 336; Pope v. Clark (C. C.) 46 Fed. 792.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary to pass upon the other points argued. The demu'rrer is overruled, with leave to answer on payment of costs within 20 days.

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

Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator Co., 184 F. 84, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5702 (circtsdny 1910).

184 F. 84 (Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kavanagh, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Evans
188 F.2d 234 (Sixth Circuit, 1951)
Kenyon v. Automatic Instrument Co.
160 F.2d 878 (Sixth Circuit, 1947)
American Type Founders, Inc. v. Dexter Folder Co.
53 F. Supp. 602 (S.D. New York, 1943)
Andrew Jergens Co. v. Woodbury, Inc.
273 F. 952 (D. Delaware, 1921)
Sirocco Engineering Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.
208 F. 147 (S.D. New York, 1913)