Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/47

21 TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN PATENTED ARTICLES. 21 He cites a case in Illinois,^ where two joint owners of a patent had divided the country between them, and had agreed that each should have the exclusive right to manufacture within his own dis- trict, and it was held that this agreement was not binding upon a purchaser from one of the parties of one of the machines made under the patent. The court held that the contract not to manu- facture in Illinois did not attach itself to the machines, and run with the property in them as a covenant against their being used in Illi- nois. It was insisted that the fact that the contract was recorded in the Patent Office as a part of the assignment was notice to the purchaser; but the court decided that the contract related to the manufacture of knit goods by the party, and not to the use of the machines, and the question of notice was not considered. The authorities are not conclusive on either side of the ques- tion, but, under the principles which we have referred to, it would seem to be true that on the sale of territorial rights the patentee may protect himself and his assignees by means of conditions or of contracts brought home to the purchasers. If he takes an agreement from each assignee not to sell or use or sell for use in any territory not assigned to him, or if he makes this a condi- tion of the assignment or the license, then he may not only have his remedies at law and in equity against the assignee or licensee, but he may also have a remedy in equity against one who takes an assignment of the right to sell or use, and also against one who purchases a patented article with notice of the restriction. The rights of a second assignee or licensee of the franchise itself would of course be limited, even at law, by the terms of the orig- inal assignment; but the rights also of a purchaser of an article covered by the patent would be affected in equity by notice of the limitation placed upon the rights of the seller, and of an agree- ment made by him for the protection of the remaining rights of the patentee, or of the rights which he conferred upon others with respect to the sale or use of the articles in certain territories. The purchase gives the legal right to use the article in every part of the United States, but this would not be available to one who purchased with notice of the fact that the seller had acquired his right to sell subject to a condition or contract that he would not sell for use in the territory granted to another. Whether the con- tract or condition be regarded as a charge upon the franchise, or 1 Pratt V. Marean, 25 111. App. 516 (1888).