to hear appeals from comptroller as to amendment, p. 10 rules of practice made by, p. 380 proceedings before, l'atents Act, 1883, sect. 38, p. 379 costs before, sect. 38, p. 379 may examine witnesses, sect. 38, p. 379 may give directions as to sealing patent in some cases, sect. 12, p. 32 may obtain assistance of expert, sect. 11, p. 38. PATENTS ACT, 1883, sect. 117 (1). In and for the purposes of this Act unless the context otherwise requires: Law Officer means Her Mjesty's Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for England. Letters Patent. application for. See under Application, p. 33 Libel by stating that article has been "proved to be an infringement," p. 210 (r). (r) CRAMPTON v. Swete, The plaintiff brought an action for libel, alleging that the defendants sent to their customers a circular, stating that they were unable to supply a particular kind of electric bell, invented by the plaintiff, because it had been "proved to be an infringement" of another patented bell. No action had then been brought against the plaintiff for infringement, and, although one was afterwards commenced, it was abandoned :-Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. (58 L. T. 516.) Licence. compulsory, pp. 77, 78 notification of, to be entered on Register, p. 397 copies of documents affecting proprietorship in to be supplied to Comptroller, Patents Act, 1883, sect. 23 (3), p. 397. derogation from, by grantor, p. 216 (k) need not be by deed, pp. 212 (v), (w), 214 (c) requires no stamp, p. 212 (w) not assignable, p. 213 (z) in prospective patents, p. 215 (g) to manufacturer implies licence to his vendees to vend, p. 214 (d) covenant in, to use patented invention only not in restraint of trade, p. 213 (a) covenant to account, auxiliary to covenant to pay royalties, p. 213 (z) forfeiture of, by non-payment of royalties, pp. 212 (x), 213 (y) waiver of, p. 213 (y) void where grantor knows patent is invalid, p. 211 (u) exclusive, immaterial in how many persons vested, p. 211 (t) or what is the extent of, p. 211 (t) to purchaser in one country, to use in another, where invention but rights of an assignee must not be defeated, p. 216 (i) agreement to restrain infringement of, p. 214 (f) notice of infringement can be claimed by grantor, p. 214 (ƒ) construction of, p. 214 (e) pro to use carries no implied warranty of validity of patent, pp. 90 (j), (l), 91 (p) latent ambiguity in, p. 216 (5) limited to a particular firm is not limited as to place, p. 217 (0) is not equivalent to an assignment, p. 218 (r) to manufacture abroad does not imply permission to sell in England, p. 216 (1) notice to terminate need not be under seal, p. 217 (n). Licensee, right to sue, pp. 286 (j), (1), (n), 288 (w) cannot recover money paid for use of a patent subsequently found to be void, p. 211 (s) unless fraud be proved, p. 67 (i) estoppel in actions by patentee against, when licence is exclusive, p. 211 (u) when licence is not exclusive, pp. 87 (b), 89 (h), 90 (i), (j), (l), 91 (0) where use of and payment under licence have ceased, pp. 88 (d), 91 (r) in suit against, where patent held invalid in proceedings between patentee and third party, p. 90 (m) cannot manufacture articles which are within the specification although known before the date of patent, p. 218 (p) must pay royalties although part of invention has been disclaimed, p. 218 (q). (8) TAYLOR v. HARE. [1805] A., having obtained a patent for an invention of which he supposed himself the inventor, agreed to let B. use it upon payment of a certain annual sum secured by bond; this sum was paid for several years, when B., discovering that A. was not the inventor, but that it was in public use before A. obtained his patent, brought an action for money had and received, to recover back the amount of the annuity paid :-Held, that he could not (1 B. & P. (N. R.) 260.) recover. (1) PROTHEROE v. MAY. [1839] The grant of an exclusive licence to use a patent does not invalidate the patent itself, although the patent may be vested in twelve persons; and it is wholly immaterial to its validity, in what number of persons such a licence is vested, whether exclusive or not. Such a licence would not be invalid if the districts or district covered by the licence included the whole extent of the patent. (5 M. & W. 675; 1 Web. P. C. 414.) (u) CHANTER v. LEESE. Ex. Ch. [1839] By an agreement, not under seal, between the plaintiff and A., B. and C. of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, reciting that the plaintiff had obtained a patent for an improvement in furnaces, and was solely interested in another patent invention; that the plaintiff and A. had obtained a patent for another invention; the plaintiff and B. for another; and the plaintiff and C. for another; it was agreed between the parties, that, for the considerations therein mentioned, it should be lawful for the defendant, exclusively to use, manufacture and sell any or all of the said patent inventions, within certain limits, during the continuance of the several patents, on certain terms specified in the agreement. In an action on this agreement by the plaintiff alone, to enforce one of such terms, the defendant set out the plaintiff's patent for the improvements in furnaces, and pleaded that it was not, at the time of the grant, a new invention, whereby the grant was void, which the plaintiff, at the time of making the agreement, well knew:-Held, that the plea was a bar to the action. (4 M. & W. 295; 1 H. & H. 224; affirmed on appeal; 5 M. & W. 698.) (v) CHANTER v. DEWHURST. [1844] Action for the price of a licence granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The licence was in writing, but not under seal. The defendants having received the licence, kept it, and used the invention, but, when called upon to pay the price agreed upon, objected to pay for it, on the ground that it was void, as not being under seal. By the terms of the letters patent, all persons were commanded not to make, use or put in practice the said invention, &c., without the licence, consent or agreement of the patentee, his executors, &c., " in writing, under his or their hands and seals, first had and obtained," upon pain of a contempt of the royal command, and of being answerable to the plaintiffs in damages :-Held, first, that the defendants, having obtained the licence they had bargained for, and kept it, were bound to pay for it; and secondly, that the licence was not void as not being under seal. (12 M. & W. 823; 13 L. J., Exch. 198.) 66 (w) CHANTER v. JOHNSON. [1845] Parke, B.: "The licence was rejected at the trial, for want of a stamp, and the question, therefore, arises whether any stamp was necessary. The defendants say the instrument is a deed, and ought to be stamped as such; but that is not so: it does not purport to be sealed and delivered as a deed; it rather resembles an award, or a warrant of a magistrate, which, though under seal, are not deeds." New trial ordered. (14 M. & W. 411.) (x) TIELENS v. HOOPER. [1850] By indenture, the plaintiff granted to the defendant, for a term of years, the exclusive licence to use a patent upon payment of certain sums by way of royalty. The indenture contained a Covenant for payment of the royalty, and also the following:"And it is hereby agreed that if it shall happen in any year during the continuance of the term that royalties or sums of money herein before covenanted to be paid shall not amount to the sum of £2,000 sterling, then, and in every such case, and as often as the same shall so happen, the defendant shall, within fourteen days after the expiration of any year in which it shall so happen, pay to the plaintiff such a sum of money as with the royalty hereby reserved will amount to £2,000 for that year; or if the defendant shall, at any time, make default in payment of such sum of money aforesaid, within the time appointed for payment, then it shall be lawful for the plaintiff, by writing signed by him, and endorsed on the said indenture or duplicate thereof, to declare that the said indenture and the powers and licence thereby granted shall cease and determine:"-Held, that this was not an absolute covenant on the part of the defendant to pay £2,000 a year during the term, but an alternative covenant, enabling the plaintiff to put an end to the licence on non-payment of that sum by the defendant. (5 Exch. 830.) (y) WARWICK v. HOOPER. [1850] The plaintiffs, the assignees of a patent, granted a licence to the defendant to use the patent upon the terms of his paying an annual rent of £2,000, to be made up at the end of each year, and reserved to themselves the power of determining the licence in the event of default being made in payment of this rent. The defendant failed in paying the rent; but the plaintiffs, notwithstanding, for several years allowed the defendant to use the patent, and received from him a less annual sum than that stipulated. At length, however, they determined the licence, having, subsequently to the expiration of the previous year, received from the defendant payments on the footing of the reduced rent:-Held, that, by so doing, the plaintiffs had elected not to treat the previous breach as a forfeiture of the licence, and that consequently they were not entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from using the patent. (3 Mac. & G. 60.) (z) BOWER v. HODGES. [1853] A., the patentee of machinery for making iron pipes, granted by deed to B. and his assigns the exclusive licence to manufacture them, B. paying a royalty of so much for every ton manufactured or sold by him or his assigns, and to account. B. subsequently assigned his interest in the licence to the plaintiff, who transferred it to M. and R. in trust for the defendants; and the defendants covenanted with the plaintiff to perform the covenants made by B. to A. in the first deed. It was Held, that the covenant to account was no qualification of the covenants to pay the royalties, but merely auxiliary to it. Maule, J.: "You cannot say there is any particular form for passing a licence, but licensing a person and his assigns is licensing him and all whom he may licence.. .. A licence is not really assignable. The assignment acts only as an estoppel between the parties." (22 L. J., C. P. 198.) (a) JONES v. LEES. [1856] A covenant, by a licensee for the residue of a term of fourteen years, of patented improvements in machinery for slubbing fibrous substances, not to make or use any slubbing frames whatever without the invention applied to them, is not void as a covenant in restraint of trade. (1 H. & N. 189; 2 Jur., N. S., 645; 26 L. J., Exch. 9.) (b) SCHLUMBERGER v. LISTER. [1860] Declaration for the infringement of a patent. Plea, that admi nistrator of the patentee granted a licence to S. and A. to use the patent, who assigned the same to the defendant. Replication on equitable grounds, that the deed of licence was of even date with another deed between the administrator of the patentee, six other persons and S. and A.; and by the latter deed it was witnessed that S. and A. should not manufacture or sell machines under the licence out of Great Britain and Ireland, and that by another deed between S. and A. of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, the defendant covenanted that he would perform all the covenants in the first deed contained, to be performed on the part of S. and A. The replication then alleged breaches of the covenant by the defendant in making and selling machines out of Great Britain and Ireland. Replication held bad on demurrer. (2 Ell. & Ell. 870; 29 L. J., Q. B. 157; 6 Jur., N. S., 1336; 9 W. R. 138; 3 L. T. Rep., N. S., 549.) (c) CROSSLEY v. DIXON. H. L. [1863] D. agreed verbally with C. to be supplied by C. with machines constructed according to patents of which C. was the owner, and to pay royalties for the use of such machines, and for the use of any machines supplied to him by anybody else which embodied the principle of C.'s patent:-Held, that this verbal agreement must be treated as a licence. (10 H. L. Cas. 293; 9 Jur., N. S., 607; 32 L. J., Ch. 617; 11 W. R. 716; 8 L. T. Rep., N. S., 260.) (d) THOMAS v. HUNT. [1864] A licence to A. to manufacture a patent article is an authority to his vendees to vend it without the consent of the patentee. (17 C. B., N. S., 183.) (e) GOUCHER v. CLAYTON. Ch. [1865] The patentee of an invention for improved beaters for thrashing machines, granted a licence to the defendants, to make, manufacture and sell machines, as described in the specification, for a term of years, and during the same period to apply the invention to other machines, paying a royalty of 17. for every thrashing machine manufactured by them, and the like sum for every machine made, or to be made, to which the invention should be wholly or in part applied by them; and the defendants covenanted to affix royalty plates to every new and altered machine which should be manufactured or applied by them :—Held, that the defendants were not intended to pay royalty merely on every thrashing machine, but that the true construction of the licence was, that they were to pay on all beaters manufactured by them according to the patent, and applied to machines originally, or by way of renewal. (11 Jur. N. S. 462; 13 L. T. Rep., N. S. 115.) (f) HENDERSON v. MOSTYN COPPER COMPANY. [1868] The plaintiff being possessed of a patent, granted to the defendants the exclusive licence to work it in a certain district, |