57 Kan. 105 | Kan. | 1896
The opinion of the court was delivered by
No attempt was made by Mason to comply with the statutory requirements concerning the transfer of patent-rights, and for this reason the trial court held the contract to be invalid, and adjudged a rescission. The principal question discussed
In our opinion, these provisions do not trench upon the federal power, nor interfere with the right secured to a patentee by the federal law. It is true that no state can interfere with the right of the patentee to sell and assign his patent, or take away any essential feature of his exclusive right. The provisions in question, however, have no such purpose or effect. They are in the nature of police regulations, designed for the protection of the people against imposition and fraud. There is great opportuity for imposition and fraud in the transfer of intangible property such as exists in a patent-right, and many states have prescribed regulations for the transfer of such property differing essentially from those which control the.
The purpose of the statute, as we have seen, was to prevent and punish fraud, and noncompliance with its provisions is declared to be a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment. The penalty implies a prohibition, and contracts made by a vendor of patent-rights in violation of the act are void as between the parties. The transfer of Mason, being illegal, did not constitute a valid consideration for the money or property obtained from McLeod. (New v. Walker, supra; Sandage et al. v. The Studebaker Brothers Manufacturing Co., supra.)
It is contended by plantiffs in error that if the statute is bad all of. the parties are in pari delicto, and all should be left without remedy. It appears that the
We think the pleadings are sufficient to warrant the findings that were made, and that the judgment should be affirmed.