A Digest of Patent Law and Cases, Incorporating the Provisions of the Patents ACT, 1883; For the Use of Inventors and the Legal Profession (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884* Excerpt: ...him a percentage on the profits made, any assignee of the original assignee taking with notice of this convenant will be bound by it, and will have to account for the profits. Werderman v. Societe Generale d.Electricity, L.R.19 Ch.D. 247 (1881). Where a patentee assigned his patent to A and B, who covenanted to pay him 5 per cent, on the profits, the accounts to be rendered yearly. A and B formed a company to work the patent. The patentee sued the company for an account of profits and 5 per cent on them. Held, as the company was formed with notice of the covenant, they were liable to account. The assignee of a patent or of any part of it is estopped Estoppel. irom denying the validity of the patent. Hall v. Condor, 2 C.B. N.S. 22, 53 (1857). Walton v. Lavater, 8 C.B. N.S. 162 (i860). Chambers v. Crichley, 33 Beav. 374 (1864). See also cases under Estoppel of Licensee. But an equitable assignee is not estopped. Equitable Pidding v. Pranks, 1 Mac. & G. 56 (1849). as9ignecs. In this case S had an exclusive licence from patentee to use the patent, and he made an equitable assignment of all his interest to others. The plaintiff, the patentee, brought an action for infringement. Held the equitable assignee could dispute validity of this patent, Lord Cottenham saying in his judgment there: "They are mere equitable assignees, and why should they be deprived of the right which every stranger has of disputing the validity of the patent." An agreement by the vendor of a patent to assign to the covenant. purchaser all future patent rights which the vendor may hereafter acquire with respect to the aforesaid inventions, or any of like nature to the patent sold, is good, and not contrary to public policy. Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v. Sampson, L...