US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 295 U. S. 392 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke, Inc., 295 U.S. 392 (1935)

Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke, Inc.

No. 601

Argued April 12, 1935

Decided May 13, 1935

295 U.S. 392




1. A sale by a patentee of all his interest in a pending suit to enjoin infringement and for an accounting, but passing no right in the patent, gives the purchaser no right to an injunction, and hence no right to intervene. P. 295 U. S. 394.

2. It is the right to an injunction which underlies the equitable jurisdiction in such suits. Id.

3. A plaintiff in a suit to enjoin infringement of his patent and for an accounting, who sells his entire interest in the suit but retains the patent, can no longer maintain the suit. Id.

Certiorari to review 73 F.2d 303 dismissed.

Certiorari, 294 U.S. 700, to review the reversal of an interlocutory decree of injunction, 4 F.Supp. 259, in a patent case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 295 U. S. 393


In this suit for injunction to restrain an alleged infringement of a patent, and for an accounting, the Circuit Court of Appeals, on November 10, 1934, vacated an interlocutory decree for injunction and directed the District Court to dismiss the bill. On February 4, 1935, this Court granted a writ of certiorari. Upon the argument at this bar, respondent suggested that there had been a change in conditions since the decision of the Court of Appeals, and the case was continued to permit counsel to submit briefs upon the questions thus raised. Briefs have been submitted accordingly.

It appears that, after the decree of the Court of Appeals, and on January 17, 1935, the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts, in a suit brought by petitioner (its name having been changed to the H. W. Peters Corporation), appointed a receiver "of the estate, property, moneys, debts and effects of every kind and nature" belonging to petitioner. Later, on February 25, 1935, after the writ of certiorari had been granted, the state court authorized the receiver "to sell at public sale all right, title and interest that the receiver may have" in the present suit, which was described as "pending in the United States Supreme Court entitled Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke, Inc.,' being No. 601 of the October Term, 1934." The sale was made accordingly and was confirmed by the state court on February 27, 1935. From the petition to confirm the sale it appears that the receiver stipulated that "he was not selling any right or title in and to any patents belonging to the plaintiff corporation." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 295 U. S. 394

Harriet E. Cole, the purchaser at the receiver's sale, has asked leave to intervene in this Court, but as she has not acquired through her purchase the title to, or an interest in, the patent, she is not entitled to seek an injunction to restrain infringement. Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works, 261 U. S. 24, 261 U. S. 38-39; Boomer v. United Power Press Co., 13 Blatchf. 107, 112-113; Kaiser v. General Phonograph Supply Co., 171 F.4d 2, 433. The right to such an injunction underlies the equitable jurisdiction here invoked. Root v. Lake Shore & M.S. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. The motion for leave to intervene is denied.

By order of the state court, the receiver, as such, succeeded to the patent right and to the cause of action here involved. But the receiver, while retaining the patent, has disposed, with the approval of the state court, of his entire interest in the present suit against respondent. As the petitioner in these circumstances is not in a position to maintain this suit, the Court is of the opinion that the writ of certiorari should be


ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™