|
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company No. 715 Argued January 12, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 502
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Under the patent law, the grant by patent of the exclusive right to use, like the grant of the exclusive right to vend, is limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that law does not empower the patent owner, by notices attached to the things patented, to extend the scope of the patent monopoly by restricting their use to materials necessary for their operation but forming no part of the patented invention, or to send such articles forth into the channels of trade subject to conditions as to use or royalty, to be imposed thereafter, in the vendor’s discretion. The Button-Fastener Case, 77 F. 288, and Henry v. Dick Company, 224 U.S. 1, overruled.
In determining how far the owner of a patent may restrict the use after sale of machines embodying the invention, weight must be given to the rules long established that the scope of every patent is limited to the invention as described in the claims, read in the light of the specification, that the patentee receives nothing from the patent law beyond the right to restrain others from manufacturing, using, or selling his invention, and that the primary purpose of that law is not to create private fortunes, but is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
The extent to which the use of a patented machine may validly be restricted to specific supplies or otherwise by special contract between the owner of the patent and a purchaser or licensee is a question outside of the patent law, and not involved in this case.
235 F. 398 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) in 243 U.S. 502 243 U.S. 505. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HA6ISIBUMDW5X5Z.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917), in 243 U.S. 502, page 243 U.S. 505. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HA6ISIBUMDW5X5Z.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917). cited in 1917, 243 U.S. 502, pp.243 U.S. 505. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HA6ISIBUMDW5X5Z.
|