TENSION OF PATENTS

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
TENSION OF PATENTSAuthored
The Law Mind • 945 words
Definition
Extension of patents — rendered in Bouvier's as "tension of patents," likely a typographical or OCR artifact for "extension" — refers to the legal mechanisms by which the term of a patent may be prolonged beyond its original grant period, or alternatively, the proceedings by which patents may be challenged, repealed, or invalidated through equity. In the context where Bouvier's entry actually addresses the topic, the relevant doctrine concerns the **repeal of letters patent**: the legal process by which patents obtained by fraud, or conflicting patents covering the same subject matter, may be voided through equitable proceedings brought in federal court. Under Revised Statutes § 4918 (the predecessor framework to modern interference and derivation proceedings), any person holding an interest in one or more interfering patents could bring a bill in equity against the owner of a competing patent to resolve priority and obtain cancellation of the conflicting grant. Two core legal actions arise from this framework: 1. **Government suit to repeal**: The United States could initiate equity proceedings to cancel a patent procured by fraud on the patent office — an early expression of what modern law calls inequitable conduct. 2. **Interfering patents proceeding**: Private parties holding patents covering the same subject matter could sue in equity to resolve which patent was valid and which should be repealed. ---
Common Confusion
The heading "TENSION OF PATENTS" as it appears in some digitized versions of Bouvier's is almost certainly a transcription error for "EXTENSION OF PATENTS" or, more precisely given the content, the section deals with the **repeal and invalidation** of patents rather than their extension. Researchers encountering this heading in a digitized corpus should not expect to find doctrine about prolonging patent terms. The substance of the entry is about patent conflicts, fraud, and equitable cancellation. Modern "patent term extension" — a wholly distinct concept governing pharmaceutical and other regulated-industry patents under 35 U.S.C. § 156 — is unrelated to the doctrine Bouvier describes here. ---
Why It Matters in Research
This entry is a navigational trap in historical legal research. The heading "tension of patents" will mislead any researcher expecting discussion of patent duration or term extension. The actual legal content concerns two distinct but related historical doctrines: (1) equity jurisdiction to cancel fraudulently obtained patents, and (2) interference proceedings between competing patent holders. **Historical corpus pitfall**: Digitized versions of Bouvier's and other nineteenth-century legal dictionaries frequently contain OCR or transcription errors that corrupt headwords. "Tension" for "extension" is a characteristic example. Researchers using keyword search across historical legal texts should flag results under this heading and cross-check against the substantive content rather than relying on the headword alone. **Doctrinal evolution**: The interference proceeding framework referenced in Bouvier's (R.S. § 4918) has been substantially transformed. The America Invents Act of 2011 replaced interference proceedings — which adjudicated priority under a first-to-invent system — with derivation proceedings, suited to the current first-inventor-to-file system. Researchers tracing the lineage of patent conflict resolution must account for this fundamental shift when reading pre-AIA materials. **Equity jurisdiction**: The government's ability to sue in equity to repeal a fraudulently obtained patent reflects a broader nineteenth-century principle that patents, as public grants, could be recalled when obtained through fraud on the sovereign. This doctrine evolved into the modern inequitable conduct defense, though the two are not identical in scope or procedure. **Cross-corpus alert**: The contracts encyclopedia entry on patent versus latent ambiguity is superficially suggested by keyword matching but is not directly relevant here. The more productive connections are to the IP encyclopedia entries on patent law foundations and pharmaceutical patent litigation, where patent term extension under Hatch-Waxman represents the modern analog to term-duration questions. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's entry, as preserved, addresses two points with reasonable precision: (1) the government's equity standing to sue for repeal of a fraudulently obtained patent, and (2) the rule that a bill in equity to repeal two interfering patents to the same party is not multifarious (i.e., does not improperly join unrelated claims). Both propositions reflect sound nineteenth-century equity doctrine. What Bouvier's does not address — and what the corrupted headword might suggest — is any law of patent term extension as a distinct legal mechanism. True patent term extension legislation developed primarily in the twentieth century; Bouvier's predates that framework entirely. Historical dictionaries of this period are therefore useful for understanding patent validity and cancellation doctrine but are silent on modern term-extension regimes. The entry's reference to R.S. § 4918 grounds it in a specific statutory moment: the Revised Statutes of 1874, which codified the interference-proceeding structure. Researchers should treat Bouvier's treatment as reflecting law as of the late nineteenth century and not project it forward without checking intervening statutory developments. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Patent law in the United States is exclusively federal. Equity proceedings to repeal patents and resolve interferences were heard in federal circuit courts historically, and post-1982 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. No state-law analog exists. International researchers should note that patent cancellation mechanisms — oppositions, nullity actions, inter partes review — vary substantially by jurisdiction and treaty framework. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Patent Law — Overview, History, and the Patent Act (35 USC) (Law Mind Intellectual Property Encyclopedia) The Hatch-Waxman Act and Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation (Law Mind Intellectual Property Encyclopedia) ---
Related Terms
Letters patent — Interference proceedings — Derivation proceedings — Inter partes review — Inequitable conduct — Patent invalidity — Multifariousness — Fraud on the patent office — Patent term extension — America Invents Act
TENSION OF PATENTSmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Of the repeal of letters patent. The United States may sue in equity for the repeal of a patent obtained by fraud; 128 U.S. 315; and a bill in equity to repeal two patents for the same subject-matter and to the same party is not multifarious ; 128 U. S. 315. R. S. § 4918 provides that any person in- terested in one or more interfering patents may bring his bill in equity against the owner of the adverse patent, upon which the court may declare either of the patents void in whole or part, or inoperative, or in- valid in any particular part of the United States. The judgment rendered affects only the parties or those taking under them. Suits may be maintained by the govern- ment in its own courts to set aside one of its own patents, not only when it has a proprietary and pecuniary interest in the result, but also when it is necessary in order to enable it to discharge its obliga- tions to the public, and sometimes when the purpose and effect are merely to en- force the rights of an individual. In a suit between individuals to set aside an in- strument for a fraud, the testimony must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing and more than a bare preponderance of evidence is required. This is much more so when the government attempts to set aside its solemn patent. In establishing the patent office, congress created a tri- bunal to pass upon all questions of novelty and utility, giving it exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance, with provisions for review. Its determination of facts should therefore be held conclusive upon the gov- ernment subject to the same limitations as apply in suits between individuals; 167 U. S. 224. Of the assignment of patents. Every patent or an interest-therein is assignable in law, by an instrument in writing; such as- signments, etc., are void as against any purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable con- sideration, without notice, unless recorded in the patent office within three months. But an unrecorded assignment is valid as against a subsequent party who has had actual notice; Holmes 152: 2'Sto. 609. The right may be successively assigned without limit; 9 Fed. Rep. 390. Any per- son may take under an assignment, a married woman, an infant, etc.; 17 Fed. Rep 841. An invention may be assigned before it is perfected; 26 Fed. Rep. 249; 92 U. S. 724; but an agreement for the future assignment of a patent not yet granted is not a recordable instrument; 32 Fed. Rep. 783. A deed conveying "all the inventor's property and estate whatsoever" carries rights in unpatented inventions; 10 Wall. 367. An assignment is the transfer of the entire interest in a patented invention or of an undivided portion of such entire in- terest as to every section of the United States; Rob. Pat. § 762; it differs from grant in relation to the territorial area to which they relate. A grant is the transfer of the exclusive right in a specific part of the United States. It is an exclusive sec- tional right. A license is a transfer of a less or different interest than either the interest in a whole patent or an undivided part of such whole interest or an exclusive sectional interest; 4 Blatch. 206. See 3 Fed. Rep. 143; 21 Wall. 205. Any trans- fer of an interest in a patented invention, which cannot operate as an assignment or grant, is a license; Rob. Pat. § 806. See 4 Blatch. 206. A license is distinguished from an assignment and a grant in that the latter transfers the monopoly as well as the invention, while a license transfers only the invention and does not affect the mo- nopoly otherwise than by estopping the licensor from exercising his prohibitory powers in derogation of the privileges con- ferred by him upon the licensee: Rob. Pat. § 806. See 5 Fish. 411; 138 U. S. 252; 144 id. 248. A license is said to be merely the right not to be sued: 7 Hun 146. It need not be recorded: 2 Sto. 69. It may be by parol; 153 U. S. 332. The right of a patent owner to license the use of his patent is not a creature of statute, but of the com- mon law; 29 Fed. Rep. 17. No particular form is required for an as- signment; 32 Fed. Rep. 790; to comply with the act it must be in writing; 104 U. S. 521; Holmes 152; 5 Fish. 528. It may be made either before or after the patent issues; 94 U. S. 225. A grant of the exclusive right to make, use, and sell a patented article throughout the United States for the full term of the patent, is an assignment; 41 Fed. Rep. 792; where the intention of a writing is to transfer all rights under the patent, it is an assignment; 32 Fed. Rep. 790. One owuing a patent with several claims cannot assign a single claim so as to pass the legal title; such a transfer is a mere license; 144 U. S. 238. A joint owner may give a license; 61 Fed. Rep. 401. A licensee cannot dispute the validity of the patent; 41 Fed. Rep. 48; but where a license does not recite the validity of the patent, a licensee who abandons the patent may set up the defence of invalidity in an action for royalties alleged to be payable by

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In