Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co.

Citations

• 152 U.S. 200
• 14 S. Ct. 523
• 38 L. Ed. 411
• 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2110

Syllabus

<p>The owner of an exclusive right to sell, place, and operate a patented invention within the limits of a State, conveyed to another party the like exclusive right in certain specified counties in that State, and agreed that during the period covered by the licenses and patents, the grantor would not knowingly sell or permit others to sell the patented goods within those counties, and further, that the grantor would supply the patented articles to the grantee on specified terfiis and conditions. The contract also guaranteed that the patented articles so supplied should have a life service of five years, and the grantor agr.eed to defray the expense of incidental repairs necessary thereto. The grantor then assigned all its rights and interest in this contract to a third party. The grantee continued to order the patented articles, as wanted, from the grantor, and th<¡; assighee supplied the goods as ordered and they were accepted. The assignee sued the grantee to recover the value of the goods so delivered. The grantee denied all liability and set up as counter claim, a claim for damage by reason of sales of the patented article in the territory covered by the license. Held,</p> <p>(1) That the defendant, having accepted the goods from the plaintiff, was bound to pay for them;</p> <p>(2) That his liability for them was to' be measured by the contract price, and not by the market rate;</p> <p>(3) That with reference to the sale of the patented articles in the licensed territory, the scienter was. an essential part of the agreement, and, in the absence of proof of actual knowledge of the sale, by the plaintiff, the' defendant could not recover on his ■ counter claim;</p> <p>(4) That as to sales which were shown to have been made with the plaintiff’s knowledge, the measure of damages was the plaintiff’s profits', and not the profits which the defendant might have made;</p> <p>(6) That the defendant could recover, under the agreement as to the life service of the patente