As the Supreme Court recently explained, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013), the principle comes from early English common law of property, explained in Coke on Littleton early in the 17th century.

Under the common law, if a man is possessed of a chattel (item of personal property) and he transfers his property in it to another, no restriction against the use or disposition of the chattel will be effective, for that would hinder trade and commerce – it would interfere with bargaining among men.

In 1865 they assigned to Lockhart & Seelye of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the ownership of the patent in a circular area around Boston having a ten-mile radius.

Adams, the plaintiff in this case, was the assignee of the patent in an area outside this circle which included the town of Natick, Massachusetts.

[1] Burke, the defendant, was an undertaker doing business in Natick, Massachusetts, seventeen miles from Boston.

Burke purchased some patented coffin lids from Lockhart & Seelye, who had manufactured them.

[5] Accordingly, the Court ruled that "we hold that in the class of machines or implements we have described, when they are once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on their use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee or his assignees or licensees.