Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional question involved — Contracts — Employee's patented invention assigned to employer — Employee not hired to invent — Person not owner of patent may not contract for royalties — "Royalties" defined — Items manufactured with patented equipment — Agreement to pay employee on a unit basis — Not royalty contract, when.
Per Curiam.
It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.
Appeal dismissed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MIDDLETON, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.