{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2115, "word_count": 365, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9402999877929688], "ccnet_perplexity": [1207.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE LAW or PAIESrs. -
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE
NORTHERN DsTRicT New YORK, October Term.
lSl5.-Present, Justices Nelson and Conking. Gibson
vs. Rchards.-This was action on the for In
frngement OF the plaintiffs rights in the Wood worth
planning machine. The patent was granted to wiism
Woodwork on the 27th of December 1928 for fourteen
years from that date and the 10th day OF November
ls42 the patent was extend ed to VIM. W. Woodwork,
as administrator Of VIM Woodwork, for years
from and after the expiration OF the first term On the
9Th day ofJuy last, VIM. w. Wood worth made a
der OF the letters patent in order that patent might
be issued upon amended and more perfect specihca


ton On the same day a renewal was made based upon
the amended specification and explanatory dra wings ill.
ed The plaintiff in this suit claimed assignee of
exclusive right for the territory within which the
pass was alleged to have been committed, by assign
ment made prior to the surrender and renewal The
question argued before the Court demurrer
the plaintiff declaration 1t contended that


render of patent could not be legally made after the
expiration Of the term of the original grant, to wit the
first fourteen The Court held that surrender
If the original letters patent rendered void all assign
ments under that patent far regarded those who
ing issued TO the administrator vested in him The leg
title, and therefore it necessary that the plaintiff
should have new assignment before he could maintain
an action at law Tor an invasion OF the patent.


Wilson VS.. Rousseau and Easton In this cause,
concerning the renewal of the patent for Wood.
worhs planning machine, several important questions
were discussed among which were the light OF tho ad
mnsrator take extended patent under the law
of 1886 and the question whether the benefit Of the
tended patent accrued to the administrator for the
ne of the heirs Of deceased the assignees OF


the original patent On these and otner points, the
court cerh sd difference of opinion eud they 20
the supreme Court of the Unlted States.