Skip to main content
· 3/22/1904

National Cash Register Co. v. New Columbus Watch Co.

Citations

  • 129 F. 114
  • 63 C.C.A. 616
  • 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Assignment—Instruments Entitled to Registration.</p> <p>An instrument which does not purport to convey any present interest in an existing patent, or one for which an application is pending, is not an “assignment, grant, or conveyance,” within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. § 4898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 33871, and its registration does not operate as constructive notice to an assignee of a patent subsequently applied for, and granted to the person executing the same.</p> <p>2. Same — Notice to Assignee of Equitable Rights of Third Persons.</p> <p>Where the attorney for an inventor, having been requested by complainant to ascertain whether his client would sell a pending application for a patent, bought such application himself, without disclosing the fact that’ he was acting for any one else, and then resold and assigned the same to complainant for more than double the price he paid, complainant was not affected by his knowledge that others had an equitable interest therein.</p> <p>3. Same — Bona Fide Purchase without Notice.</p> <p>Evidence of a fraudulent purpose, or conduct amounting to moral turpitude, is not necessary to deprive a purchaser of a legal title of the advantage of his position. If he is shown to have been aware of such facts as to put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry, he is chargeable with all the facts which would have been developed if inquiry had been prosecuted with reasonable diligence.</p> <p>4. Same — Facts to Put Assignee on Inquiry.</p> <p>Complainant purchased and took an assignment of an application for a patent which had been pending in the Patent Office for some four years. Six months before the filing of such application, complainant had been in negotiation with the applicant and two other persons for the purchase of prior patents for inventions made by him relating to the- same kind of machines, and issued to the three, and was then informed of an agreement between them by which, so long as it continued in forc

Judges: Lurton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.