Adams v. Meyrose
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
In Equity. This is a suit to charge defendants as infringers of a patent. The bill alleges that complainant is a citizen of Illinois, and that defendants are citizens of Missouri; that complainant is the owner of a patent on an improved lantern; that he licensed defendants to manufacture such lanterns in St. Louis, and sell them throughout the United States, during the life of complainant’s patent; that defendants agreed to pay a specified royalty; tiiat the license was upon…
Read the full summary
In Equity. This is a suit to charge defendants as infringers of a patent. The bill alleges that complainant is a citizen of Illinois, and that defendants are citizens of Missouri; that complainant is the owner of a patent on an improved lantern; that he licensed defendants to manufacture such lanterns in St. Louis, and sell them throughout the United States, during the life of complainant’s patent; that defendants agreed to pay a specified royalty; tiiat the license was upon condition “that if said parties of the second part (defendants) shall fail to keep and perform any of the covenants and…
1Opinion of the Court
Treat, D. J.
The case of Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, is eonclnsive of this case. The plaintiff seeks to charge the defendants as infringers of the patent, despite the contract of license, in consequence of non-compliance with its terms. At first it seemed clear, under the contract, that the suit was well founded; but as the majority of the United States supreme court have taken an adverse view, nothing remains for this court but to dismiss this bill, and remit the plaintiff to the remedies indicated in that decision.
Bill dismissed, without prejudice.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hartell v. TilghmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Luckett v. Delpark, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Standard Dental Mfg. Co. v. National Tooth Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1899
- American Graphophone Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911