Oeste

Thys Co. v. Oeste

Good Law
111 F. Supp. 665·96 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294·1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3005
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 19536435California4,892 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lemmon, J.

Ecclesiastes tells lis ' that men “have sought out many inventions”. -Consequently — to paraphrase the same Preacher — of making many patents there is no end.

Frequently, however, patents have been improvidently granted. ’ In the words of Mr. Justice Douglas, “The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies, has looked with favor on. the opportunity which the exercise of discretion affords to expand .its own jurisdiction. ’ 'And so it has placed a host -of gadgets under the armour of patents — -gadgets'that obviously have had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge.”

. O-f such a jejune type is the patent in suit.

1. The Complaint

The complaint was filed on December 15, 1950. It alleged that on December 24, 1940, United States Letters Patent No. 2,226,009 were issued to the plaintiff Horst Company “for an invention in Hop Separator”, and that the Horst Company is still the owner of the patent. Other allegations were:

Op October 18, 1940, Edouard Thys entered into an exclusive license agreement with the Horst Company, whereby Thys became the exclusive licensee under “certain United States and foreign Letters Patent and applications,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.