INFRINGEMENT-continued. Defendants had not infringed. No judgment was delivered on the other issues raised. The Plaintiffs appealed.-Held, on appeal, that, according to the true construction, the Defendants had infringed, and that the Patent was valid. The appeal was allowed. The Defendants appealed to the House of Lords.-Held, that the construction put on the Specification by KEKEWICH, J., was the correct one. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the judgment of KEKEWICH, J., was restored. BRITISH MOTOR SYNDICATE, LD. v. J. E. H. ANDREWS & CO., LD., p. 85. 66 66 10. Construction of Specification.-Defendant held not to infringe.Action dismissed. Letters Patent having been granted for a "Method of producing a silky lustre upon fabrics and webs of all "kinds," the owners of the Patent commenced an action for infringement, in which the Defendant denied infringement, and alleged that the Patent was invalid on several grounds. The Patentee, in his Complete Specification, after giving a theory to explain the lustre of silk, continued :-"If, therefore, the lustre of "silk is to be given to other parts (sic) of fabric, it becomes requisite to provide the web with a great number of small "surfaces, which are distributed, not on one but on several "planes lying each in an angle to all the other, the angles being "different ones"; and, after stating that this might be done by means of a stamp to which the structure of a silk-satin web had been transferred by a galvanoplastic process, but that the manufacture of such stamps was difficult, stated as follows :—“ I, "therefore, prefer to engrave a great number of small surfaces of "the said kind into a plate or roller consisting of steel or any "other hard material, or I cut such surfaces into said parts by "means of a suitable machine. A section through a plate or roller "provided with the differently inclined small surfaces will represent an appearance similar to that of a fine-toothed saw, there being, "however, the difference that there may be more directions of "inclination than only two." After saying that the breadth of the surfaces should not be so great as for them to be cognizable by a sound eye, and describing the surfaces as representing "a sort of "parallel grooves," and that the direction of the said grooves should be parallel to the threads of the fabric, the Specification concluded with three claims, the first being for "the method of producing a "silky lustre upon fabrics and webs, consisting in providing the "latter with numerous small surfaces having different inclinations "with regard to the plane of the stuff, substantially as described." The Defendant used for the purpose of producing a silky lustre a roller having on it a large number of fine parallel lines, about 250 to the inch. Rollers engraved with about 90 such lines to the inch were known for the same purpose previously to the Patent.-Held, following Bradford Dyers' Association, Ld. v. Bury (18 R.P.C. p. 161), and without deciding the questions as to validity, that such a roller as the Defendant used was not what the Patentee intended to describe, and that the Defendant had not infringed. The action was dismissed with costs. Costs on the higher scale were refused. BRADFORD DYERS' ASSOCIATION, LD. v. WILLIAMS, p. 229. 66 11. Construction of Specification. Claim for a method.-Anticipation.-Subject-matter.-Infringement.-Action dismissed. In 1893 INFRINGEMENT-continued. 66 Letters Patent were granted to M. for " Improvements in the method "of producing the explosive mixture in hydrocarbon engines." The Specification claimed (1) "The method of producing the "explosive mixture in hydrocarbon-engines, consisting in sucking liquid hydrocarbon by the air sucked by the working piston, "substantially as described"; (6) "The method of producing the "explosive mixture in hydrocarbon-engines, consisting in sucking "liquid hydrocarbon out of a nozzle c1 fed from supply-basin a by "pipe c and extending into connection b2 between air-inlet-channel "band mixing-chamber b, said sucking being performed by the air "sucked by the working-piston through said channel b', connection "b2 and mixing-chamber b, and the level of the hydrocarbon within "basin a being kept on the same height by a swimmer-valve d, "acting on the main-supply-tube e, substantially as described." On amendment of the Specification in 1900, the first claim and several others were struck out, Claim 6 being amongst those retained. The owners of the Patent having brought an action for infringement, the Defendant denied infringement and alleged the invalidity of the Patent on the grounds of want of novelty, want of utility, want of subject-matter, and relied in particular on Specifications of B. and W. as anticipating it. The Plaintiffs contended that the claim was substantially for the use of the apparatus described.-Held, that the claim was for a method and not for a machine, and that the references to the drawings were for the purpose of illustration only and not by way of restriction; that the preservation of the level of the oil just below the nozzle was not the essence of the invention; that unless the Patent was for a method defined and illustrated by reference to any nozzle, &c., it was bad for want of subject matter, but, if it were for such a method, it was bad for want of novelty, being anticipated by B. and by W.; and that, even if the Patent was valid for a machine, the Defendant had not infringed. The action was dismissed with costs, the costs of certain of the Particulars of Objections being allowed. BRITISH MOTOR TRACTION Co., LD. v. FRISWELL, p. 497. 66 12. Construction of Specification. Subject-matter.-Defendants held not to have infringed. Action for infringing a Patent for " Improve"ments in apparatus for hardening and tempering steel wire and "tape." The improvement consisted in a method of keeping the wire bright after passing through the tempering flame, by passing the wire direct from the flame into a tube or chamber "from "which oxygen is excluded as much as is conveniently possible, and which is long enough to permit the wire to "become sufficiently cooled." The Specification described a chamber supplied by means of a pipe "with a gas or with a mixture "of gases which is as near as conveniently possible free from admix"ture with oxygen." The Defendants passed their wire into a tube which was not supplied with gas, but which was sealed against the admission of air by dipping under molten lead at its mouth.-Held, that this was not an infringement, the Plaintiff's method involving an artificial supply of gas. If the construction of the Plaintiff's Specification did not imply an artificial supply, then there was want of subject-matter. The action was dismissed with costs, and a Certificate was given that certain of the Particulars of Objections were reasonable and proper. ASHWORTH v. ENGLISH CARD CLOTHING Co., LD., p. 367. INFRINGEMENT-continued. "An 13. Construction of Specification-Action dismissed on the ground of non-infringement.-Appeal allowed, so far as the action for infringement of Patent. The owners of a Patent for "improvement in fly catchers" brought an action for infringement. The Defendants did not question the validity of the Patent, but denied infringement. At the trial it was held that the Defendants had not infringed, and judgment was given for them on this and on certain other claims for relief which where made, with costs. The Plaintiffs appealed as to the infringement of the Patent. The appeal was allowed, and an injunction was granted to restrain infringement with an inquiry as to damages, a special Order being made as to costs. MARSHALLS, LD. v. CHAMELEON PATENTS MANUFACTURING Co., LD., p. 400. 14. Disconformity.-Anticipation.-Infringement.-Patent held valid.Injunction, Order to deliver up, and an account of profits granted. C. was the registered owner of a Patent for "Improvements in "candlesticks," by making the sockets in one piece with fangs projecting above the nozzle to hold candles of different sizes. In the Specification there was no provision as to the fixing of the socket on the base or bed of the candlestick, nor was it expressly stated that the socket and fangs should be made in one piece. In the Complete Specification, but not in the Provisional Specification it was provided that small tits cut on the socket piece should overlap and hold the nozzle or grease-catcher. In 1901 C. commenced an action against L., who denied infringement, novelty, and subject-matter, and alleged disconformity and prior publication. It appeared that holders with similar fangs, fitting or standing in common candlesticks, were well known prior to C.'s Patent.-Held, at the trial, that a socket with fangs in one piece was new; that the arrangement of tits for holding the nozzle was merely a method of carrying out the invention, and was therefore rightly added in the Complete Specification without disconformity; that there had been an infringement by the Defendant; and that the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed. CARTER v. LEYSON (trading as the PECKHAM BOX Co.), p. 508. 15. Exhibition of infringing articles, without sale or intention of sale.-Importation of infringing articles manufactured abroad.Infringing articles exhibited whilst performing the function indicated in the Specification of the Letters Patent sued upon.User.-Injunction.- Damages of a nominal character. The Plaintiffs were the registered owners of Letters Patent No. 16,783 of 1890, granted to William Erskine Bartlett for "Improvements in "tyres or rims for cycles or other vehicles." The validity of these Letters Patent had been established in a previous action, and was not in dispute in either of these actions, in both of which the facts and matters in issue were identical. The Defendants were manufacturers of motor cars, and at the Stanley Cycle Show held at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, exhibited a number of motor cars. These motor cars had fitted to and fully inflated upon their wheels tyres manufactured abroad in accordance with the Specification of the Letters Patent sued upon and imported by the Defendants into this country. The motor cars themselves were on exhibition for sale, but the Defendants contended, and it appeared upon the evidence to be the fact, that there was no intention of selling the INFRINGEMENT-continued. tyres or offering them for sale together with the cars, but that if a car was sold the imported tyres would have been taken off and other tyres manufactured by licensees of the Plaintiffs under the Letters Patent sued upon placed upon the car wheels prior to delivery to a purchaser. On this ground the Defendants contended that there was no infringement, there being no sale or offer for sale or user within the meaning of the words of the grant of the Letters Patent. -Held, that, even although the Defendants had not any intention of selling the tyres complained of, there had been such a user of the invention as to amount to an infringement, and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction. Damages were assessed at the nominal amount of 40s., and the Plaintiffs were awarded costs, but not solicitor and client costs. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. BRITISH AND COLONIAL MOTOR CAR CO., LD., AND ANOTHER. SAME v. DE BREYNE, p. 313. 16. License. Deposited article. Article not completely finished by licensees. The owners of a Patent for "Improvements in "rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of wheels for cycles and "other light vehicles," which had been construed by the House of Lords as being for the application to a wheel of a saddle shape tyre held in position by two inextensible wires, granted a license to the G. Co. to manufacture tyres under the license in accordance with a deposited tyre. By agreement C. sold to the G. Co. canvas strips to which the G. Co. affixed the wires, which were in accordance with those in the deposited tyre, and resold the strips and wires to C., who then added the outer rubber and sold the tyre.-Held, that C. had not infringed. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ld. v. Buckingham & Adams (18 R.P.C. 423) followed. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. CRESSWELL, CHESHIRE RUBBER Co., NORTH CHESHIRE RUBBER CO., LD., AND DONALD, p. 473. 17. Injunction granted. Action against directors of Defendant Company dismissed. Issue of validity raised on pleadings but not at trial. Certificate of validity granted. Injunction stayed by Court of Appeal by consent pending the appeal. The owners of a Patent for "An improved boiler flue ” sued the Defendant Company and its directors for infringement. The Patent claimed: "A boiler flue or furnace consisting, as to its "general form, of a series of annular or partially annular flutings "connecting a corresponding series of sharp ridges." The Defendants' flue had ridges and also a subsidiary corrugation between each two of the ridges. It was contended that the ridges in the Defendants' flue were not similar to the sharp ridges claimed by the Patentee, and that the subsidiary corrugations so altered the Defendants' flue as to take it outside the claims in the Plaintiffs' Specification.— Held, that the Defendants had infringed. No evidence having been given as to the acts of the directors, the action as against them was dismissed. The issue of the validity of the Patent was raised on the pleadings, but was abandoned at the trial. After some discussion, a Certificate that the validity had come into question was granted. The injunction was suspended until the 1st of May 1901 to enable the Defendants to apply to the Court of Appeal. On such application the injunction was by consent stayed pending the appeal. LEEDS FORGE CO., LD. v. DEIGHTON'S PATENT FLUE AND TUBE Co., LD., p. 233. INFRINGEMENT-continued. 18. Patent held valid in previous action. Infringement found. Stay of injunction refused. In 1893 a Patent was granted to S. for "Improved, or improvements in connection with, fancy or "ornamental bricks, tiles, slabs, wallings, ceilings, and the like." The Patent became vested in the N. Company, who in 1896 obtained in an action for infringement against the C. Company a judgment that the Patent was valid and had been infringed. In 1900 they commenced an action for infringement against the G. Company, who denied the validity of the Patent and that they had infringed.Held, that as there was no substantial difference between the materials before the Court and those in the previous action, the decision in the previous action that the Patent was valid would be adopted, and, further, that the Defendants had infringed. Judgment was given for the Plaintiffs. NATIONAL OPALITE GLAZED BRICK AND TILE CO., LD. v GRAND HOTEL, BIRMINGHAM, LD., p. 249. 19. Prior user. Experimental user.- Want of subject-matter not raised in Particulars.-Patents, &c. Act, 1888, section 29. The owners of a Patent for "Improved apparatus for the electro-deposition of metals" brought an action for infringement against H. & Co., who denied infringement, and attacked the validity of the Patent on the grounds. (inter alia) of anticipation by prior publication and prior user. The question of prior user was the main issue at the trial. Dr. B., some years before the date of the Patent, had used an apparatus similar to that of the Plaintiffs for coating rifle bullets with nickel. The Plaintiffs contended that this was merely an experimental user.Held, that the Plaintiffs' Patent was not anticipated, either by the Specifications cited or by Dr. B.'s user, which was merely experimental, though his apparatus was identical with the Plaintiffs'.Semble, evidence may be given of want of subject-matter, though it is not alleged in the Particulars of Objections, the objection of want of novelty being sufficient to cover it. ELECTROLYTIC PLATING APPARATUS Co., LD. v. HOLLAND, p. 521. 20. Repairs to Patented Article. In 1891 a Patent was granted to W. for "Improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of "wheels for cycles and other light vehicles." This Patent became vested in the Plaintiffs, who brought an action for infringement against the Defendants. The infringement complained of consisted in the repair of four old Dunlop tyres; in one case the old wires only were retained; in the others the old canvas and old wires were kept, but the tyres were provided with new canvas linings which completely covered the inside of the tyres, surrounded the wire, and were sewn all round the rim.-Held, that what the Defendants had done was an infringement of the Plaintiffs' Patent, and the usual relief was granted with costs as between solicitor and client. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. EXCELSIOR TYRE CEMENT AND RUBBER Co., AND J. F. BARKER, p. 209. 21. Subject-matter. Invention. Alleged 66 |