1. A sale by a patentee of all his interest in a pending suit to
enjoin infringement and for an accounting, but passing no right in
the patent, gives the purchaser no right to an injunction, and
hence no right to intervene. P.
295 U. S. 394.
2. It is the right to an injunction which underlies the
equitable jurisdiction in such suits.
Id.
3. A plaintiff in a suit to enjoin infringement of his patent
and for an accounting, who sells his entire interest in the suit
but retains the patent, can no longer maintain the suit.
Id.
Certiorari to review 73 F.2d 303 dismissed.
Certiorari, 294 U.S. 700, to review the reversal of an
interlocutory decree of injunction, 4 F. Supp. 259, in a patent
case.
Page 295 U. S. 393
PER CURIAM.
In this suit for injunction to restrain an alleged infringement
of a patent, and for an accounting, the Circuit Court of Appeals,
on November 10, 1934, vacated an interlocutory decree for
injunction and directed the District Court to dismiss the bill. On
February 4, 1935, this Court granted a writ of certiorari. Upon the
argument at this bar, respondent suggested that there had been a
change in conditions since the decision of the Court of Appeals,
and the case was continued to permit counsel to submit briefs upon
the questions thus raised. Briefs have been submitted
accordingly.
It appears that, after the decree of the Court of Appeals, and
on January 17, 1935, the Superior Court of the State of
Massachusetts, in a suit brought by petitioner (its name having
been changed to the H. W. Peters Corporation), appointed a receiver
"of the estate, property, moneys, debts and effects of every kind
and nature" belonging to petitioner. Later, on February 25, 1935,
after the writ of certiorari had been granted, the state court
authorized the receiver "to sell at public sale all right, title
and interest that the receiver may have" in the present suit, which
was described as "pending in the United States Supreme Court
entitled
Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke,
Inc.,' being No. 601 of the October Term, 1934." The sale was
made accordingly and was confirmed by the state court on February
27, 1935. From the petition to confirm the sale it appears that the
receiver stipulated that "he was not selling any right or title in
and to any patents belonging to the plaintiff
corporation."
Page 295 U. S. 394
Harriet E. Cole, the purchaser at the receiver's sale, has asked
leave to intervene in this Court, but as she has not acquired
through her purchase the title to, or an interest in, the patent,
she is not entitled to seek an injunction to restrain infringement.
Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works,
261 U. S. 24,
261 U. S. 38-39;
Boomer v. United Power Press Co., 13 Blatchf. 107,
112-113;
Kaiser v. General Phonograph Supply Co., 171 F.
432, 433. The right to such an injunction underlies the equitable
jurisdiction here invoked.
Root v. Lake Shore & M.S.
Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. The
motion for leave to intervene is denied.
By order of the state court, the receiver, as such, succeeded to
the patent right and to the cause of action here involved. But the
receiver, while retaining the patent, has disposed, with the
approval of the state court, of his entire interest in the present
suit against respondent. As the petitioner in these circumstances
is not in a position to maintain this suit, the Court is of the
opinion that the writ of certiorari should be
Dismissed.