In Bloomer v. McQuewan (1852) 55 U.S. 539, Chief Justice Taney declared that the purchaser of a patented implement or machine for use "in the ordinary pursuits of life" exercises in its use no rights created by the Act of Congress, and does not derive title by virtue of the franchise or exclusive privilege granted to the patentee; and that, when the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly, or under protection of the Act of Congress. The Supreme Court stated there were no restrictions or conditions imposed, and hence the purchasers were in no way limited. The question before the Supreme Court was whether purchasers of licenses to sell or use the planning machines for the duration of the original patent term could continue to use the licenses through the extended term. (Id. at 548.) The Supreme Court held that the extension of the patent term did not affect the rights already secured by purchasers who bought the item for use "in the ordinary pursuits of life." (Id. at 549.) In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between purchasers of the right to manufacture and sell patents articles and end users of those articles. The Supreme Court explained: "The franchise which the patent grants, consists altogether in the right to exclude every one from making, using, or vending the thing patented, without the permission of the patentee. This is that he obtains by the patent. And when he sells the exclusive privilege of making or vending it for use in a particular place, the purchaser buys a portion of the franchise which thepatent confers. He obtains a share in the monopoly, and that monopoly is derived from, and exercised under, the protection of the United States. And the interest he acquires, necessarily terminates at the time limited for its continuance by the law which created it. The patentee cannot sell it for a longer time. And the purchaser buys with reference to that period; the time for which exclusive privilege is to endure being one of the chief elements of its value. He therefore has no just claim to share in a further monopoly subsequently acquired by the patentee. He does not purchase or pay for it. But the purchaser of the implement or machine for the purpose of using it in the ordinary pursuits of life, stands on different ground. In using it, he exercises no rights created by the act of Congress, nor does he derive title to it by virtue of the franchise or exclusive privilege granted to the patentee. The inventor might lawfully sell it to him, whether he had a patent or not, if no other patentee stood in his way. And when the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly. It passes outside of it, and is no longer under the protection of the act of Congress. And if his right to the implement or machine is infringed, he must seek redress in the courts of the State, according to the laws of the State and not in the courts of the United States, nor under the law of Congress granting the patent. The implement or machine becomes his private, individual property, not protected by the laws of the United States, but by the laws of the State in which it is situated."