Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/531

 516 FEDERAL REPORTER. �barred. I did not make that point in the argument, for the sim2:)le reason that I desired to seeure from your honor an expression on the subject for the beneflt of the profession at large." �The Court — " Couusel bas my opinion upon the showing as it vvas made, and. if there is any other view to be presented, I will hear him upon a peti- tion for rehearing; but at present I should adliere tothat opinion." �No w, one of the grounds of demurrer aJso is that for any time prior to July 7, 1865, the plaintiffs are barred by reason or by force of the statute of Illinois of February 4, 1849. I confess that as I thought about that question I could not understand logically why the provision of the state statute did not apply if there were no statute of the United States; but the weight of authorityis the other way, and I think my business here holding this court is to be gov- erned by the weight of authority. Purely upon the weight of authority, therefore, I overrule that view, and hold that the state statute of limitations lias uo application. �f Sayles V. DxiBUQUE & Sioux City E. Co. {Circuit Court, D. lowa. In Chancery.) �Pee Cueiam, (Dillon and Love, JJ., concurring.) We have considered the points made in argument upon the demurrer to the bill. We have no time to elaborate our views. It must sufflce to state our conclusions. "We do this at this time so that the cause may proceed. ihese conclusions are not on all. the points so flxed as to preclude further argument and consideration on the final hearing. The views which we now entertain of the questions made are as follows: * * * �Fourth. As to the statute of limitations. W€i are of opinion that the state statute of limitation has no application to suits in respect of the rights granted by letters patent for inventions. This bill was brought in February, 1877. The original term expired July 6, 1866 ; the extended term, July 6, 1873/. Theact of congress of 1870, section 55, prescribed that «ail actions shall be brought during the term for which the letters patent shall be granted or extended, or six years after the expiration thereof." This limitation continued in force until the first day of December, 1873, wheu the Revised Statutes took ef£ect, repealing it. Since the original and extended term of a patent may be and often is held by different persons, and since the language of the limitation statute of 1870 is ambiguous, — in view of the injustice to defendants of requiring them to account for profits made any time since the date of the original patent in 1852, a period of 25 years, where the proofs may be lost, — we are of opinion that their right is barred to recover for profits or damages during the original term. An inquiry of profits or gains within a period of five years is difficult, as the profits gained depend upon many con- ditions. When we come to carry such an investigation baek for almost a quarter of a century, accuracy of results is almost impossible, and the laches of a patentee coming forward at such a late date does not give him a very favora- ble position in a court of equity. What is the proper rule to measure com- pensation in a court of equity is a question not arising on the demurrer, and it is not implied from the above use of the words "profits and gains." ��� �