Copy Salt Lake City, Utah May Mr. c/o Lionel Browning B. 14, 1925. Farr, Company, Jegden,Utah. Dear Sir: You have requested me to examine the Remington file for a citation of a case or cases relative to the effect of t he expiration of a patent upon the liability to pay royalties as between licensee and licensor. The case cited is that of Pressed Steel Car Comnany vse. Union Pacific Railroad Company and Pressed Steel Car Company vs. Southern Pacific Company, 270 Fed. 518. It was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit December 22, 1920. That would be the circuit in which the State of New York is located. The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Ward and recognizes and holds to the genoral rule that liability to pay the royalties terminates upon the expiration of the patent. Parties may, however, contract to extend that liability beyond the period of expiration. In the case cited it was held that there was nothing in the contract which created an extension of the liability beyond the expiration period. Permit been anydispute me as to to say this that I do not goneral rule understand for many there has years. Of course, when the patent expires, then it ceases to have the effect of a patent and any one may deal with the thing. theretofore covered by the patent the same as if it had never been patented. The question which arose and which I considered in the Remington matter was whether, under the terms of the contract involved in that particular matter, the licensee would be liable to the licensor for a royalty upon guns manufactured but not sold at the time of the expiration of the contract. As I read the contract, it seemed to me that the express stipulation covering this point was clear and that the Remington people could not avoid the royalty by manufacturing the zuns and not selling them until the life of the patent had expired. It was a matter of the construction of the particular the general rule announced contract rather than any dispute about by the Court in the case of Pressed Steel Car Comnany vs. Union Pacific Company. The manufacture of a patened article is, in my Opinion, an infringement on the rights of the party owning the patent. The license granted protects the licensee from liability if he pays the royalty stipulated for in the license contract.