Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator Co.

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

Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator Co.

184 F. 84, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5702

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 184 F. 84 (Sirocco Engineering Co. v. Monarch Ventilator 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F. 84, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sirocco-engineering-co-v-monarch-ventilator-co-circtsdny-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack