UNITED srarns v. Aimnrcnn nntp- ricmsrnous oo. 23
nor partners with the American Bell Telephone Company in respect of the
sam e, nor agents for the management thereof, nor in possession thereof.
"The bill seeks to cancel, tear the seal from, and destroy said patents upon
the alleged ground of alleged fraud in the proceedings of the patentee, Alex-
ander Graham Bell, in procuring the same, and of errors, mistakes, and in-
advertences in the oilicers of the United States in granting the same, and be-
fore the respective grants and dates thereof. Such alleged cause of action
arose, if at all, in and out of transactions had in Massachusetts and the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and by and between parties then and there resident. Said
alleged cause of action arises, if at all, out of the constitution and laws of the
United States, and said bill has for its sole object to destroy a grant made by
the United States, the patent-olllce. and the secretary of the interior, to hold
the same null and void, and to mutilate and destroy the records of the patent-
ofrice. As ancillary thereto, this bill also seeks to prevent the American Bell A
Telephone Company from bringing suits for the infringement of said patents
in the courts of the United States, where alone such suits can be brought.
Said alleged cause of action, if it exists, is exclusively of federal origin, cog-
nizance, and jurisdiction.
"The two patents referred to in the bill are N o. 174,465, applied for by Al-
exander Graham Bell, February 14. 1876. and dated March 7, 1876, and No.
186,787, applied for by Alexander Graham Bell, January 15, 1877,_and dated
January 30, 1877. They were both issued to said Bell as inventor, owner,
and patentee. At the time when each of said patents was applied for, and at
‘ the time when each was granted and issued, and during all the intervening
time, the pateut·oi’dce of the United States, and the legal omcial residence of
all the otlicers thereof, and of the secretary of the interior, was at Washing-
ton, in the District of Columbia. . At all said times, and during thewhole of
tht! pendency of said two applications, said Bell was an inhabitant of and res-
ident in the state of Massachusetts, and not of or in the state of Ohio. The
whole business of tiling said two applications.prosecuting them. obtaining
and receiving said patents, and all communications with the patent-office and -
with the omcers thereof, relating to that business, were done, transacted, and
had in Massachusetts, or in Washington. andnot in any particular in the state
of Ohio. Thereafter, by purchase for valuable consideration, and by divers
mesne assignments, the entire, sole, and absolute title in and to said patents
became vested in the American Bell '1‘elephoneCompany, in the years 1880
and 1881, and has ever since continued vested in said corporation- All said
assignments have been executed and delivered in Massachusetts or Washing-
ton. and notin the stateof Ohio. • , .
" At the timethis bill was filed, and ever since, and long before, the busi-
ness of the American Bell Telephone Company and the telephone business in .
Ohiohas been conducted and transacted as follows:
"The American Bell Telephone Company, ever since it purchased said pat- *
· ents, and took said assignments thereof, in 1880 and 1881, has always been
the sole and exclusive owner of said two Bell patents,-No. 174,465 and No.
186,787; and has never granted or conveyed to any person whatever. and es-
pecially has never granted or conveyed to any of the other corporations de-
fendant, any such assignable right or interest in the said patents, or either of
them, as is described, referred to, or contemplated by section 4898 of the Re-
vised Statutes of the United States. It has not given or granted to either of
the other defendant corporations any right or license whatever to make or
sell telephones employing or embodying or embracing any of the rin ventions
patented in and by the said two patents, nor any telephones whatever.
“It·and its predecessors, owners of said patents,. each for itself determined
that it would not itself carry on the telephone business (or any business) in
the state of Ohio, (or elsewhere outside of the state of Massachusetts,) but,
in lieu thereof, that it would grant licenses under its patents to persons or
corporations who might apply therefor to use its patented »teleph0nes,l¢md