INFRINGEMENT-continued. called the "Ace" ball, the core of which consisted normally of 85 parts of water and 15 of gelatine powder. This core was of the consistency of a jelly. There was evidence that in some cases under moderate heat or after the lapse of some months the core was found to have decomposed into a liquid. H. R. maintained that the "Ace" ball was an infringement of the Patent, and raised an action against J. P. C. & Co. for interdict and damages.-Held, by the Lord Ordinary that the words "incompressible fluid" were used in a popular and practical sense; that the core of the "Ace" ball, though not an incompressible fluid in a strict scientific sense, was in a popular and practical sense a semi-liquid substance falling under the description in the Specification; that there was no substantial difference between the two balls in use; and that the "Ace" ball fell under the Patent. The Defenders were found liable in damages, but were not interdicted in respect that they were licensees. The Defenders reclaimed.-Held, by the First Division of the Inner House, that the Patent was confined to the core of a ball which is a fluid in ordinary language; that the core of the "Ace" bal! was not in that sense a fluid; that in actual use there was a substantial difference between the two balls; and that it had not been proved that decomposition of the cores of the "Ace balls to a liquid took place in such circumstances as to constitute the Defenders infringers. The Defenders were assoilzied. ROGER V. J. P. COCHRANE & Co., pp. 9 and 757. 10. Whether an article which is not an infringement in the first instance may become an infringement subsequently, e.g., by a natural change in its composition, discussed. ROGER v. CоCHRANE & CO., pp. 9 and 757. INQUIRY AS TO DAMAGES. See also DAMAGES. 1. Offer by Defendants.-Where the Plaintiffs were successful in an action for infringement, and the Defendant offered to agree a certain sum as damages, but the Plaintiffs elected to take an inquiry, a statement of the Defendants' offer was directed to be inserted in the Order. BRITISH VACUUM CO. LD. v. EXTON HOTELS CO. LD., p. 617. (See also DIGEST OF DESIGN CASES, COSTS.) 2. Stay of inquiry refused. BRITISH UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. LD. v. A. FUSSELL & SONS LD., at p. 386. 3. Stay of inquiry ordered pending appeal, the Defendants giving a certain undertaking. FLOUR OXIDIZING CO. v. CARR & Co. LD., p. 460. INSUFFICIENCY. See SPECIFICATION (SUFFICIENCY OF). INVENTION. Meanings of the term. See BRITISH UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO, LD, v. A. FUSSELL & SONS LD., LICENCE. See SPECIAL CASE. at P. LICENSEE. Injunction not granted against a licensee who had infringed and against whom damages were awarded. ROGER v. J. P. COCHRANE & Co., p. 9. On appeal, it was held that the Defendants had not infringed. See INFRINGEMENT, No. 9. LIEN. Lien for minimum royalties. DANSK REKYLRIFFEL SYNDICATE AKTIESELSKAB v. SNELL, p. 421. See AGREEMENT. MASTER AND SERVANT. 1. Declaration made that the Defendant was a Trustee of his interest in certain Patents for his employer. The Defendant F. was in the employ of the Plaintiff Company, first as a workman and then as the manager of the department for moulding cylinders for phonograph records. Whilst in such employ, he and the general manager of the Plaintiff Company took out in their own names two Patents, relating to such mouldings, for inventions made wholly or partly by the Defendant F. The Patents were taken out through the patent agent of the Company, and the Company paid all the expenses of taking them out. The general manager did not claim, and admittedly had not, any beneficial interest in the Patents, and had assigned his share to the Plaintiff Company. The Company claimed that the Defendant F. was a trustee for them of his interest in the Patents, but this the Defendant denied, and the Company brought an action against F. and against a Company, with which he was connected and to which it was alleged he had granted a licence, for a declaration that he was a trustee, and for other relief.-Held, that the Defendant F. was employed to do his best by his skill, knowledge, and inventive powers to improve the manufacture of the cylinders, and made the inventions in the execution of his duty, receiving suggestions from the general manager, and that on the facts as to the taking out of the particular Patents, and apart from any general inference to be drawn as to his duty to the Company, F. was a trustee for the Company. A declaration was made accordingly with injunctions and accounts against both Defendants, and an inquiry as to damages against the Defendant F. and an account of profits against the Defendant Company, the costs of such account and inquiry being reserved. Certain counterclaims by the Defendants were dismissed with costs. EDISONIA LD. v. FORSE, p. 546. 2. Agreement between employers and employé that employers should be entitled to a share in inventions made by the employé during the employment. Plaintiffs successful as to one Patent.-Action for declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to share to the extent of two-thirds in two Letters Patent taken out by the Defendant after he had quitted the Plaintiffs' service.-Declaration made as to one Patent, but not as to the other.-Costs. WOLLASTON AND KNOWLES v. CHAPMAN, p. 733. 3. Where it was found that the Defendant was a trustee for the Plaintiffs of a share in a Patent, he was ordered to execute an assignment on such share. WOLLASTON AND KNOWLES v. CHAPMAN, p. 740, NOVELTY. See also SUBJECT-MATTER. 66 : 1. Patent held to be confined to a combination substantially as described and not to be anticipated.-Action for infringement.Sufficiency of Specification.-Invention sufficiently distinguished.Infringement.-Patent held valid.-Judgment for Plaintiff.-Appeal dismissed. In 1897 a patent was granted to B. for a machine for stropping razors. The Patentee claimed :- "1st. A machine for strop"ping razors consisting of a reciprocating flexible strop led around a pulley or the like a razor holder pivotted and adapted to be rocked "from side to side about its pivot by means of the said strop so as to "present the edges of the razor alternately to the strop during the "reciprocating motion of the said strop substantially as described." B. brought an action against W. for infringement of the Patent. The Defendant among other anticipations relied on the previous Specification of S. (No. 16,088 of 1888) in which a machine to effect the like object was described. He alleged that the Plaintiff's claim included this earlier invention, and that he had insufficiently described in what the novelty of his invention consisted. The two machines differed in certain details. It was held at the trial (24 R.P.C. 219), that the Patentee's claim was confined to the form of machine he had particularly described; that it did not include the earlier invention; that there were material differences between the machine of the Plaintiff and the machine of S.; and that the Defendant had infringed. An injunction was awarded with costs, and an Inquiry as to damages and delivery up of infringing articles was ordered.-Held, that the judgment of the learned Judge was right. The appeal was dismissed with costs. BESTON v. WATTS, p. 19. 2. Claim for a combination held not to be limited by the descriptions in the Specification, and to have been anticipated. Actions for infringement of two Patents.-Construction.-Novelty.— Subject-matter.-First Patent held not infringed; second Patent held invalid.-Actions dismissed.-Appeals as to first Patent dismissed by Court of Appeal.-Appeals as to second Patent allowed and Patent held valid and infringed.-Appeals as to second Patent allowed by House of Lords. In 1895 a Patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in "pneumatic and similar hand tools." In 1896 another Patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in pneumatic hammers and valve "mechanism therefor." In the second Patent the alleged improvements consisted partly in employing a cylindrical shell valve, with differential areas, placed near the rear end of the piston chamber so that the piston passed through the valve. Claims 13 and 14 were alleged to have been infringed. Claim 13 related partly to a live air passage leading directly from the source of supply to the piston. chamber through the wall of the latter and independently of the piston, and Claim 14 related partly to the provision in the piston of a circumferential groove, by means of which the live air passage was placed in communication with a passage leading from the piston chamber to the larger area of the valve. Claim 7 related partly to an auxiliary passage, opened by the movement of the valve, to admit an additional supply of motive fluid to the larger area of the valve. Three actions were brought for infringement-in the first two actions, of both Patents, and, in the third action, of the second Patent only. -Held, at the trial, as to the 1896 Patent, that it was not limited to a hand pneumatic hammer, but extended to any pneumatic hammer to which the combination therein described was applicable; that the Claims were for subordinate integers; that Claims 13 and 14 failed for want of subject-matter and because they had been anticipated; and LICENSEE. Injunction not granted against a licensee who had infringed and against whom damages were awarded. ROGER v. J. P. COCHRANE & Co., p. 9. On appeal, it was held that the Defendants had not infringed. See INFRINGEMENT, No. 9. LIEN. Lien for minimum royalties. DANSK REKYLRIFFEL SYNDICATE AKTIESELSKAB v. SNELL, p. 421. See AGREEMENT. MASTER AND SERVANT. 1. Declaration made that the Defendant was a Trustee of his interest in certain Patents for his employer. The Defendant F. was in the employ of the Plaintiff Company, first as a workman and then as the manager of the department for moulding cylinders for phonograph records. Whilst in such employ, he and the general manager of the Plaintiff Company took out in their own names two Patents, relating to such mouldings, for inventions made wholly or partly by the Defendant F. The Patents were taken out through the patent agent of the Company, and the Company paid all the expenses of taking them out. The general manager did not claim, and admittedly had not, any beneficial interest in the Patents, and had assigned his share to the Plaintiff Company. The Company claimed that the Defendant F. was a trustee for them of his interest in the Patents, but this the Defendant denied, and the Company brought an action against F. and against a Company, with which he was connected and to which it was alleged he had granted a licence, for a declaration that he was a trustee, and for other relief.-Held, that the Defendant F. was employed to do his best by his skill, knowledge, and inventive powers to improve the manufacture of the cylinders, and made the inventions in the execution of his duty, receiving suggestions from the general manager, and that on the facts as to the taking out of the particular Patents, and apart from any general inference to be drawn as to his duty to the Company, F. was a trustee for the Company. A declaration was made accordingly with injunctions and accounts against both Defendants, and an inquiry as to damages against the Defendant F. and an account of profits against the Defendant Company, the costs of such account and inquiry being reserved. Certain counterclaims by the Defendants were dismissed with costs. EDISONIA LD. v. FORSE, p. 546. 2. Agreement between employers and employé that employers should be entitled to a share in inventions made by the employé during the employment. Plaintiffs successful as to one Patent.-Action for declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to share to the extent of two-thirds in two Letters Patent taken out by the Defendant after he had quitted the Plaintiffs' service.—Declaration made as to one Patent, but not as to the other.-Costs. WOLLASTON AND KNOWLES v. CHAPMAN, p. 733. 3. Where it was found that the Defendant was a trustee for the Plaintiffs of a share in a Patent, he was ordered to execute an assignment on such share. WOLLASTON AND KNOWLES v. CHAPMAN, p. 740, NOVELTY. 66 66 See also SUBJECT-MATTER. 1. Patent held to be confined to a combination substantially as described and not to be anticipated.-Action for infringement.Sufficiency of Specification.-Invention sufficiently distinguished.Infringement.-Patent held valid.-Judgment for Plaintiff.-Appeal dismissed. In 1897 a patent was granted to B. for a machine for stropping razors. The Patentee claimed :-"1st. A machine for strop"ping razors consisting of a reciprocating flexible strop led around a pulley or the like a razor holder pivotted and adapted to be rocked "from side to side about its pivot by means of the said strop so as to present the edges of the razor alternately to the strop during the "reciprocating motion of the said strop substantially as described." B. brought an action against W. for infringement of the Patent. The Defendant among other anticipations relied on the previous Specification of S. (No. 16,088 of 1888) in which a machine to effect the like object was described. He alleged that the Plaintiff's claim included this earlier invention, and that he had insufficiently described in what the novelty of his invention consisted. The two machines differed in certain details. It was held at the trial (24 R.P.C. 219), that the Patentee's claim was confined to the form of machine he had particularly described; that it did not include the earlier invention; that there were material differences between the machine of the Plaintiff and the machine of S.; and that the Defendant had infringed. An injunction was awarded with costs, and an Inquiry as to damages and delivery up of infringing articles was ordered.-Held, that the judgment of the learned Judge was right. The appeal was dismissed with costs. BESTON v. WATTS, p. 19. 2. Claim for a combination held not to be limited by the descriptions in the Specification, and to have been anticipated. Actions for infringement of two Patents.-Construction.-Novelty.Subject-matter.-First Patent held not infringed; second Patent held invalid.-Actions dismissed.-Appeals as to first Patent dismissed by Court of Appeal.-Appeals as to second Patent allowed and Patent held valid and infringed.-Appeals as to second Patent allowed by House of Lords. In 1895 a Patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in "pneumatic and similar hand tools." In 1896 another Patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in pneumatic hammers and valve "mechanism therefor." In the second Patent the alleged improvements consisted partly in employing a cylindrical shell valve, with differential areas, placed near the rear end of the piston chamber so that the piston passed through the valve. Claims 13 and 14 were alleged to have been infringed. Claim 13 related partly to a live air passage leading directly from the source of supply to the piston chamber through the wall of the latter and independently of the piston, and Claim 14 related partly to the provision in the piston of a circumferential groove, by means of which the live air passage was placed in communication with a passage leading from the piston chamber to the larger area of the valve. Claim 7 related partly to an auxiliary passage, opened by the movement of the valve, to admit an additional supply of motive fluid to the larger area of the valve. Three actions were brought for infringement-in the first two actions, of both Patents, and, in the third action, of the second Patent only. -Held, at the trial, as to the 1896 Patent, that it was not limited to a hand pneumatic hammer, but extended to any pneumatic hammer to which the combination therein described was applicable; that the Claims were for subordinate integers; that Claims 13 and 14 failed for want of subject-matter and because they had been anticipated; and |