Every person who pays the patentee for a license to use his process becomes the owner of the product, and may sell it to whom he pleases, or apply it to any purpose, unless he binds himself by covenants to restrict his rights of making and vending certain articles that may interfere with the special business of some other licensee. (Met. Washing Machine Co. vs. Earl, 2 Fish., 203; 2 Wall., Jr., 230.)
A license is not forfeitable for non-payment of royalties in the absence of express provisions to that effect. (Wagner Typewriter Co. vs. Watkins, 84 Fed. Rep., 57; 1898.)
A shop right is a personal license and is not assignable. (Gibbs vs. Hoefner, 19 Fed. Rep., 323; 22 Blatch., 36.)
A license to a person to use an invention only "at his own establishment" does not authorize a use at an establishment owned by him and others. (Rubber Co. vs. Goodyear, 9 Wallace, 788.)
A license is not transferable unless its terms so state. (Olmer vs. Rumford Chemical Co., 109 U. S., 75.)
A license merely to make and not to sell does[p. 83] not impair the patent owner's right to sue for infringement outside of the license; and the purchaser of the licensee's tools and materials would not carry the right to sell the product made thereon. (American Graphophone Co. vs. Walcut, 87 Fed. Rep., 556; 1898.)
A license to use a machine carries with it the right to repair the machine, and replace worn parts until the essential original parts of the machine have disappeared. (Robinson on Patents, Sec. 827.)
A lawful sale of a patented article by a patentee or grantee, within his own territory, carries with it the right to use such article throughout the whole United States. (Adams vs. Burke, 5 O.G., 118; Hobbie vs. Smith. 27 Fed. Rep., 636.)
When an applicant in certain instruments assigned his right, title, and interest in an invention, retaining for himself the exclusive right to employ the invention in the manufacture of a certain class of machines, Held, that such instruments do not convey the entire interest in the invention or any undivided part thereof, and they are construed to be nothing more than licenses. (Ex parte Rosback, 89 O. G., 705. Decided Oct. 5, 1899.)
An implied license to use a patented improvement without payment of any royalties during the continuance of employment of the inventor, and[p. 84] thereafter, on the same terms and royalties fixed for other parties, is shown where the inventor applies the patent to his employer's work without any agreement for compensation for its use further than a notice that he would require pay after his employment terminated. (Keys vs. Eureka Consol. Min. Co., U. S. S. C., 158 U. S., 150.)