the United States
Supreme Court, with the result that much conflicting legislation has
been enacted by the different States, it may be said, as a general
proposition, that a State or municipality, through the medium of its
Legislature or officials, has no constitutional right to make or enforce
laws which in any way affect or control the transfer, sale, or other
disposition of United States Letters Patent; or to interfere in any
manner with the patentee going into the open market anywhere to sell his
rights conferred by the patent.

It is a well-established principle of law that Congress has exclusive
right and power to legislate on the subjects specially assigned to it by
the Constitution, while power is delegated to the several States to
legislate on those subjects not thus expressly placed within the
control of Congress. It would seem clear that there can be no State
interference with the rights which are incident to the grant of Letters
Patent and expressly conferred thereby.

Ohio was the first State attempting to place restrictions upon the
handling of patent rights, which, in 1868, passed an act requiring any
person, before offering for sale a patent right in any county, to submit
the patent to the Probate Judge of the county, and make affidavit before
said judge that the patent was in force, and that the applicant had the
right to sell, and also requiring that any written obligation taken on
the sale of such right should bear on its face the words, "Given for a
Patent Right."

The portion of the Ohio statute relating to the making and filing proofs
was subsequently made the law in Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska,
and Kansas, while the requirement that written obligations given for a
patent right should bear such statement written upon its face was made
the law in Vermont, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York,
Connecticut, and Arkansas.

In view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of _ex parte_ Robinson, 2 Bissel, 309, and Webber
_vs._ Virginia, 103 U. S., 347; 20 O. G., 136, some of the States
repealed their statutes relating to the filing of proofs, while others
did not--notably Indiana and Kansas, where the statute still remains in
force.

While the Supreme Court in the above cases did not decide the
constitutionality of the State statutes, it was clearly indicated that
property in inventions existed by virtue of the laws of Congress, and
that