US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. A suit is within the jurisdiction of the district court, as arising under the patent laws, where the bill seeks an injunction against infringement, with profits and damages, even though it contain averments in denial of an anticipated defense of license or authority chanrobles.com-red

Page 270 U. S. 497

to use the patent. Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547, qualified. P. 270 U. S. 510.

2. But where the main purpose of the bill is to recover royalties under a license or assignment, or damages for breach of covenants, or for specific performance thereof, or to declare a forfeiture of licenses or obtain a reconveyance of an assigned patent for breach of conditions, additional averments of danger that the patent will be infringed after the title has been so restored, coupled with a prayer for an injunction, do not bring the case within the federal jurisdiction. @ 51 U. S. 502, 270 U. S. 510.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction in a suit by Luckett, a patent owner, for an accounting and damages under license agreements, for cancellation of the agreements, injunction against future infringement of the patents, etc. chanrobles.com-red

Page 270 U. S. 498