Although an assignment of patent is not recorded within three months, it is binding on the assignor, and he cannot sell the patent again. (Ex parte Waters, Com. Dec., 1899, p. 42.)
A verbal license or interest in an invention has no effect as against a subsequent assignee without notice of such verbal license or interest. (U. S. S. C., Gates Iron Works vs. Fraser et al., 1894, C. D., 304.)
An assignment to assign future patents, in consideration of the assignee's paying the expense of[p. 81] taking them out, is broken by his refusal to pay for and take out a particular patent when requested, and a subsequent assignment to another conveys a perfect title. (Buck vs. Timony, 78 Fed. Rep., 487.)
Any assignment which does not convey to the assignee the entire and unqualified monopoly which the patentee holds in the territory specified, or an undivided interest in the entire monopoly, is a mere license. (Sanford vs. Messer, 2 O. G., 470.)
When a party does license, grant, and convey any invention which he may hereafter make, this gives only an equitable right to have an assignment made, and this right may be defeated by assignment of the patent to a purchaser for value without notice of this equity. (Regan Vapor Engine Co. vs. Pacific Gas Engine Co. (Nineth Cir.), 7 U. S., App., 73.)
Territorial Grants.
A territorial grantee cannot be restrained from advertising and selling within his territory, even though the purchasers may take the patented article outside the vendor's territory. (Hatch vs. Hall, 22 Fed. Rep., 483.)
One who buys patented articles of manufacture from an assignee for a specified territory becomes possessed of an absolute property in such articles, unrestricted in time or place. (U. S. S. C., Keller et al. vs. Standard Folding Bed Co., 71 O. G., 451.)[p. 82]
The sale of a patented machine by one authorized to sell, conveys the whole ownership to the purchaser, who may sell it again to another. (Morgan Envelope Co. vs. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425.)
Licenses.