Court : US Supreme Court
..... at all events, the requirement of trial by jury is imperative, and cannot be waived, and that the seventh article of amendment and the law were violated by proceeding to judgment without it. the amendatory act provides: "that if, in any action brought pursuant to section 2326 of the revised statutes, title to the ground in ..... or improvements, and that the whole proceedings and the judgment roll shall be certified by the register to the commissioner of the general land office, whereupon a patent shall issue for the claim. thus, the determination of the right of possession as between the parties is referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, in aid ..... they had wrongfully surveyed said claims so as to conflict with plaintiff's claim, and, after describing the area in conflict, averred that notice of the application for patent by defendants was published; that, within the sixty-day period of publication, plaintiff filed in the land office his adverse claim, and brought this suit within thirty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... united states having divested itself of the title to said property by the said act of confirmation, and the said patent issued in pursuance thereof, this cause cannot be maintained in this court for the confirmation of the claim of petitioners, alleged in said amended petition." whereupon petitioners appealed to this court. mr. justice brown delivered the ..... . 74 answer did not allege that the right of the petitioners to said land described in their amended petition had ever been lawfully acted upon or decided by congress or under its authority, and that said matter in said amended answer was insufficient in law to constitute a defense. these exceptions were overruled by the court upon ..... court of private land claims for land within the limits of a mine grant, which grant has been confirmed by congress and a patent issued therefor, must be rejected by that court. section 14 of the act of march 3, 1891, c. 639, 26 stat. 854, 861, establishing that court, which provides for a personal judgment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the said examiners in chief shall be governed in their action by the rules to be prescribed by the commissioner of patents." the act of july 8, 1870, c. 230, 16 stat. 198, revised, consolidated, and amended the statutes then in force on the subject, and by section 48, an appeal to the supreme court of the district ..... body in the performance of duties legally imposed upon it by congress in execution of a power granted by the constitution. in deciding whether a patent shall issue or not, the commissioner of patents acts on evidence, finds the facts, applies the law and decides questions page 172 u. s. 577 affecting not only public but private interests, ..... disposal of which he exercises functions judicial in their nature may properly be brought within the cognizance of the courts. now in deciding whether a patent shall issue or not, the commissioner acts on evidence, finds the facts, applies the law, and decides questions affecting not only public but private interests, and so as to reissue or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." this protection, so far as inventors are concerned, has been conferred by an act of congress passed april 10, 1790, and subsequent acts and amendments. the act of 1790, 1 stat. 109, c. 7, granted "the sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using, ..... to change from time to time. the case was one arising upon license agreements, originating in a state court, and did not involve the construction of the patent act in the circumstances now disclosed. chief reliance, however, of the plaintiff in this case, is upon the recent decision of this court in henry v. ..... congress to encourage useful invention, the rights and privileges which it bestows should not be extended by judicial construction beyond what congress intended. in framing the patent act and defining the rights and privileges of patentees thereunder, congress did not use technical or occult phrases, but in simple terms gave the patentee the exclusive .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the colville tribe," and, further, that he had received an allotment of land under the act of 1887, as amended in 1891, and under the act of july 1, 1892, the land being held in trust by the united states for twenty-five years from the date of the patent, july, 31, 1900. upon this statement, the deceased must be regarded as one who ..... the trust period the subjection of allottees under that act to state laws. the first part of the section as amended is: "that, at the expiration of the trust period, and when the page 232 u. s. 451 lands have been conveyed to the indians by patent in fee, as provided in 5 of this act, then each and every allottee shall have the ..... and the patenting of the lands to the allottees under that act, every allottee should "have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state of territory" in which he resided. see matter of heff, 197 u. s. 488 . but, by the act of may 8, 1906, c. 2348, 34 stat. 182, congress amended this section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the interior, that any of said lands are irrigated, reclaimed, and occupied by actual settlers, patents shall be issued to the state or its assigns for said lands so reclaimed and settled," and the amendment of 1896 brought into the act a further provision that "when an ample supply of water is actually furnished in a substantial ditch ..... cultivation, and to dispose of them only to actual settlers in tracts of not exceeding 160 acres. originally the act required that the reclamation be accomplished within ten years after the date of the act, but the amendment of 1901 directed that the ten years be computed from the approval of the state's application for the segregation ..... or canal, or by artesian wells or reservoirs, to reclaim a particular tract or tracts of such lands, then patents shall issue for the same to such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 7, 1921, the baldwin company filed the original bill in this case in the supreme court of the district against the commissioner of patents, seeking an injunction against the cancelling of the trademarks in question. by an amended bill, there was set forth the record in a suit between rev.stats. howard & co. and baldwin & co. in new ..... the decree of the court after it is entered. it is just like the proceeding in 4918 to settle controversies between interfering patents already granted by the patent office. section 9 of the trade mark act is wider than 22 in its scope. it includes one who applies for registration of an unregistered trademark which interferes with one ..... denied the motion to dismiss the bill and enjoined cancellation pending the final disposition of the cause. an appeal from this interlocutory order was taken under 7 of the act of february 9, 1893, establishing the court of appeals for the district of columbia (27 stat. 434, c. 74). the court of appeals reversed the supreme .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... to read: "that whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the united states shall hereafter be used or manufactured by or for the united states ..... discovered or invented by such employee during the time of his employment or service." the argument is that the act of 1918 deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the controversy between the present parties, because it limited the patent owner's remedy, under circumstances like those here disclosed, to a suit against the united states in the ..... by a patent of the united states shall hereafter be used by the united states without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use the same, such owner may recover reasonable compensation for such use by suit in the court of claims." the act of july 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 stat. 704, 705, amended the act of 1910 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... consideration or decision of this case. [ footnote 1 ] pursuant to the act of february 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 stat. 823, as amended by act of june 25, 1910, c. 428, 36 stat. 854. [ footnote 2 ] historically, patent grants were only narrow exceptions to the general public policy against monopolies which developed ..... the purpose of curtailing the manufacture and supply of an unpatented product, is beyond the privileges conferred by the patents, and constitutes a violation of the sherman act. the lawful individual monopolies granted by the patent statutes cannot be unitedly exercised to restrain competition. standard sanitary mfg. co. v. united states, 226 u. ..... from the case of monopolies, moore 671, 11 co. 84, and culminated in the statute of monopolies, 21 jac. i, c. 3, v, vi. see price, the english patents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... appellee, univis lens company, was the owner of a number of patents and two trademarks relating to multi-focal lenses. in 1931, ..... but it held that the prescription retailer licenses are unlawful because their restrictions upon the resale of the finished product are not within the patent monopoly, and are proscribed by the sherman act. it also held that certain "fair trade agreements" entered into by the lens company with the licensees for the control of resale prices ..... , is excluded by the patent monopoly from the operation of the sherman act. second: whether, if not so excluded, the resale price provisions of the licensing system are within the prohibition of the sherman act, and not exempted from it by the provisions of the miller-tydings act amendment of 1 of the sherman act, 50 stat. 693. .....
Tag this Judgment!