Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 3/11/1912

Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.

Citations

  • 224 U.S. 1
  • 32 S. Ct. 364
  • 56 L. Ed. 645
  • 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2279

Syllabus

<p>Complainant sold his patented machine embodying the invention claimed and described in the patent, and attached to the machine a license restriction that it only be used in connection with certain unpatented articles made by the vendor of the machine; with the knowledge of such license agreement and with the expectation that it would be used in connection with the said machine, defendant sold to the- vendee of the machine an unpatented article of the class described in the license restriction. Held that the act of defendant constituted contributory infringement of complainant’s patent.</p> <p>This court does not prescribe the jurisdiction of courts, Federal or state, but only gives effect to it as fixed by law.</p> <p>A suit for infringement which turns upon the scope of the patent and privileges of the patentee thereunder presents a case arising under the patent law.</p> <p>In determining questions of jurisdiction this court never shirks the responsibility of maintaining the lines of separation defined in the Constitution and' the laws made in pursuance thereof.</p> <p>A patentee who has leased his patent to a licensee under restrictions may waive the tort involved in infringement and sue upon the broken contract; but in that event the case is not one arising under the patent laws and, in absence of diversity of citizenship, a Federal court has no jurisdiction thereof.</p> <p>Whether the case' is one of infringement, of which the Federal court has jurisdiction or of contract of which it has not jurisdiction^ often determined by the remedy which complainaint seeks.</p> <p>The test of jurisdiction is whether complainant does or does not set up a right, title or interest under the patent laws or make it appear that a right or privilege will be defeated by one, or sustained by another, construction of those laws.</p> <p>Whether a patentee may lawfully impose restrictions on the use of a patent and whether the violation thereof constitutes infringement are questions

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding liability because the sale was made “with the purpose and intent” that the object be used for patent infringement
  • referring to “an account- ing for damages for past infringement” in a patent case
  • referring to “an accounting for damages for past infringement” in a patent case
  • contributory liability for patent infringement may be found where a good's \most conspicuous use is one which will coöperate in an infringement when sale to such user is invoked by advertisement\ of the infringing use
  • contributory liability for patent infringement may be found where a good’s “most conspicuous use is one which will cooperate in an infringement when sale to such user is invoked by advertisement” of the infringing use
  • all describ- ing Wallace as an example of contributory infringement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lueton, White, Day

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

157 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.