TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN PATENTED ARTICLES. 5 the rights of holders of patents for the same invention in different countries, and not those of assignees of the rights for different ter- ritories under the same patent.^ With regard to the claim of a right to use the patented article in this country after it had been purchased in Germany from the holder of the German patent, the Chief Justice said that the right which Hecht (the patentee) had to make and sell the burners in Germany was allowed to him under the laws of that country, and purchasers from him could not be thereby authorized to sell the articles in the United States in defi- ance of the rights of patentees under a United States patent. The court referred to the distinction taken in Wilson %k Rousseau,^ Bloomer v. McQuewan,^ and Adams v. Burke,* between the right to make and vend and the right to use, the former being a part of the franchise, and the right to use after the sale being unlimited to any locality ; but the conclusion with respect to the right to use was not applied to the case of the article purchased under foreign patents. The monopoly given by the patent of one country was regarded as wholly distinct from that given by another, and there was no discussion of the effect of the statute providing for a division of the monopoly under a United States patent. When Hobbie v. Jennison came before the Supreme Court, ^ it was insisted that the doctrine of Adams v. Burke applied only to cases in which the goods were lawfully sold for general use, and not to a case in which the sale was made nominally where it was lawful for the express purpose of having the goods used in a place where the sale would be unlawful; but the court said: "We are of opinion that the case of Adams v. Burke cannot be so limited; that the sale was complete at Bay City, and that neither the actual use oi the pipes in Connecticut, nor a knowledge on the part of the defendant that they were intended to be used there, can make him liable." This was a case in which the patented article was bought for use, and not for sale. In the next case, Keeler v. Standard Fold- ing Bed Co.,^ the question came squarely before the court whether the doctrine that an article once sold in one place was free from the monopoly everywhere would permit a man to buy from an assignee of one territory for the purpose of selling within the ter- ritory of another. The right to vend had been distinguished in 1 Boesch V. Griitf, 133 U. S. 697, March 3, 1890. * 17 Wall. 453. 2 4 How. 646. 6 149 U. S. 355. 8 14 How. 539, 549. « 157 U. S. 659, April 5, 1895.
