being a Digested Abstract of all the Cases relating to Copyright, Patents for Inventions, and Trade-marks, decided in the American courts, from 1789 to the present time. THE AUTHOR. NEW YORK, June, 1866. PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZING THE GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8. THE Congress shall have 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: Also, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. POWER OF CONGRESS, AND OF THE STATES UNDER. 1. The power of Congress, under this article and section, is limited to authors and inventors only, and does not embrace introducers, who are not authors and inventors. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns., 560, 566, 582.-YATES, THOMPSON, and KENT, JJ.; (Ct. Errors;) N. Y., 1812. 2. But such clause does not prevent the several States from exercising the power of securing to introducers of useful inventions (without being the authors or inventors) the exclusive benefit of such inventions for a limited period. Ibid., 560, 566, 582. POWER OF CONGRESS, AND OF THE STATES UNDER. 3. Nor does it take away from the States the power to enlarge, within their jurisdiction, the privilege, by extending the term of the patent or monopoly, beyond the term allowed by the acts of Congress; nor operate as an exclusion of all State legislation to aid and protect the rights obtained under the general government, if the power is exercised in harmony with, and in subordination to, the superior power of Congress. Ibid., 567, 581. 4. Though a State cannot take away from an individual his patent, yet if an author or inventor, instead of resorting to the act of Congress, should apply to the legislature of a State for an exclusive right to his production, there is nothing to hinder a State granting it, though the operation of the grant would be confined to the limits of the State. Ibid., 581. 5. The power of Congress is only to ascertain and define the rights of property in the invention; it does not extend to regulating the use of it. This is exclusively of local cognizance; such property, like every other species, must be used and enjoyed within each State, according to the laws of such State. Ibid., 581. 6. The laws of any State, granting exclusive rights and privileges in respect to patents and inventions, are inoperative as against the laws of the United States, with which they may come in collision. v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 186.-MARSHALL, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1824. Gibbons 7. If the author's book or print contains matter injurious to the public morals or peace, or if the inventor's machine or other production will have a pernicious effect upon the public health or safety, a competent authority remains with the States to restrain their use. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns., 582.-KENT, J.; N. Y., 1812. 8. Such species of property is likewise subject to taxation, and to the payment of debts, as other personal property. Ibid., 582. 9. The fact that a party has a patent giving him the exclusive right to make, use, and sell a particular medicine, does not confer upon him the right to practise as a physician, and use such medicine, in any particular State, except in conformity with the laws of such State. Jordan v. Overseers of Poor, 4 Ohio, 310.-LANE, J.; Ohio, 1831. Thompson v. Staats, 15 Wend., 395.-NELSON, J.; N. Y., 1836. 10. A party has not necessarily a right to use State, merely because he has a patent for it. Harrington, 68.-ROBINSON, J.; Del., 1833. an invention in any Vannani v. Paine, 1 11. Where V. had invented a plan for constructing and drawing lotteries, and had obtained a patent therefor, but there was a State law prohibiting lotteries, except under certain conditions, which V. and his associates had not complied with, Held, that V. was not entitled to any relief, by way of injunction or otherwise, for any alleged use of his invention within such State. Ibid., 69. 12. The power of Congress, as to patents, is general, and it rests in its sound discretion to say, when and for what length of time, and under what circumstances, a patent for an invention shall be granted. POWER OF CONGRESS, AND OF THE STATES UNDER. There is no restriction which limits its power to enact, to cases where the invention has not been known or used by the public. All that is required is, that the patentee should be the inventor. Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Sumn., 541.-STORY, J.; Mass., 1839. 13. The power of Congress to legislate upon the subject of patents is plenary; and as there is no restraint upon its exercise, there can be no limitation to the right to modify at pleasure the laws respecting patents, so that they do not take away the rights of property in existing patents. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How., 206.-BALDWIN, J.; Sup. Ct., 1843. 14. It is no objection to the validity of the laws respecting patents, that such laws are retrospective in their operation. Ibid., 206. 15. Congress may pass an act which shall act retrospectively. Such an act is not necessarily unconstitutional. Though no State can impair the obligations of a contract, this inhibition does not apply to the general government. Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 165.—MCLEAN. J.; Ohio, 1850. 16. A reservation in favor of assignees, in an act extending a patent. will not make the act unconstitutional on the ground that Congress can only confer privileges on inventors. The power to reserve rights and privileges to assignees is incidental to the general power conferred to promote the progress of the useful arts. Blanchard Gun-Stock Turning Fac. v. Warner, 1 Blatchf., 271, 276.-NELSON, J.; Ct., 1846. 17. Congress has the constitutional right to confer a new and further term on the patentee, and that even after the expiration of the first. Banchard v. Haynes, 6 West. Law Jour., 83.-WOODBURY, J.; N. H., 1848. 18. Alleged fraud and misrepresentation, in the passage of an act of Congress extending a patent, will not be presumed; but such an act will be regarded by the courts as the law of the land, until it is repealed. Gibson v. Gifford, 1 Blatchf., 531.—NELSON, J.; N. Y., 1850. 19. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, declaring that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, Congress would have no right to pass an act depriving purchasers of a patented article of the right to use such article. Such an act would not be regarded as due process of law. Bloomer v. Mc Quewan, 14 How., 553.-TANEY, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 20. Under the authority conferred by section 8th, article 1st, of the Constitution, it does not follow that Congress may authorize an inventor to recall rights which he has granted to others, or reinvest him with rights of property, which he has before conveyed for a valuable consideration. Ibid., 553. 21. Congress may renew a patent or decline to do so. The grant of an exclusive privilege to an inventor for a limited time, does not imply a binding and irrevocable contract with the people, that at the expiration of the period the invention shall become their property. Evans v. Eaton, Pet. C. C., 337.-WASHINGTON, J.; Penn.. 1816. POWER OF CONGRESS, AND OF THE STATES UNDER. 22. Congress has the constitutional power to grant an extension of a patent even after it has been once extended under section 18 of the act of 1836. Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 160-162.-MCLEAN, J.; Ohio, 1850. 23. The power of Congress was not exhausted in this respect by the act of 1836. A legislative act does not bind a subsequent legislature. Ibid., 161. 24. Congress may exercise its constitutional power, as to granting rights to inventors, either by special acts, or by a general system. Ibid., 161. 25. A private act of Congress, authorizing the issue of a patent to an inventor, is to be considered as engrafted on the general acts for the promotion of the useful arts, and such a patent is issued in pursuance of both. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 518.-MARSHALL, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 26. They are all statutes in pari materia, and all relate to the same subject, and are to be construed together. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How., 549, 551.—TANEY, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. See also DIGEST PAT. CASES, titles CONGRESS; STATUTES, B. 1, 4. |