Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/35

9 TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN PATENTED ARTICLES. 9 in that case in the title of the defendant. He was the assignee and owner of the patent for the State of Michigan, and it was held that he was entitled to sell goods with the knowledge and intention that they were to be used in the territory assigned to the plaintiff. The suggestion, therefore, was not necessary to the decision of the case, and cannot be regarded as an authoritative declaration of the opinion of the court. In the next case, — the case referred to at the beginning of this article,^ — the court seems to take pains to declare that it has not committed itself to the suggestion thrown out by Mr. Justice Blatchford in the former case. The court, speaking by Mr. Justice Shiras, says: "Whether a patentee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the purchasers, is not a question before us, and [is one] upon which we express no opinion." There is no decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, upon the question whether by means of conditions or of contracts brought home to purchasers the assignees can be protected from being interfered with by one another or by purchasers of the patented article with notice of the contracts. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Blatchford seems to be that, by means of conditions imposed in granting the licenses, the several licensees may be prevented from interfering with one another in the sale of the patented articles; and the question suggested by Mr. Justice Shiras is whether the patentee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the pur- chasers. The question is, On what principles can these condi- tions and these contracts be made binding upon persons who are not parties to them.? If an assignee takes the right to sell in a given territory on condition that he will sell only for use within that territory, will a purchaser who buys with notice of this condition be bound by the restriction } Can he be restrained by a court of equity from mak- ing use of the article in such a manner as to violate this condition agreed to by his vendor, or does the purchase of the article give him the right to use it without regard to any contract or condi- tion entered into with respect to it by a previous owner.? An assignee of the patent right may, no doubt, take it subject to restrictions affecting the manner of the use of it. He may be subject to an agreement not to manufacture except for certain 1 Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659. 2