Hardwick v. Galbraith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 2, July T., 1891, by defendant, James Galbraith et al., from order of G. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 196, in favor of plaintiff, Harry Hardwick, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover royalties from the licensee of a patent.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 2, July T., 1891, by defendant, James Galbraith et al., from order of G. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 196, in favor of plaintiff, Harry Hardwick, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover royalties from the licensee of a patent. The agreement of license contained inter alia the following clause: “ 1. The party of the first part hereby licenses and empowers the party of the second part to manufacture, subject to the conditions hereinafter named, at the factory of the said party of the second part, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The learned judge of the court below held the affidavit of defence insufficient, in which we think he was clearly right. The averment that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid, and conferred no valuable right upon the defendant, as his licensee, is without force. There are many respectable authorities which hold that a licensee under a patent cannot in any way question its validity during the continuance of the license. We need not discuss these authorities, however, as the parties to the agreement of license evidently contemplated the possibility that the patent might be declared…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lathrop v. Rice & Adams CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1936
- Edison General Electric Co. v. Thackara Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Jungersen v. KaysenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953