FORM OF PATENT. VICTORIA, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith: To all to whom these presents shall come greeting: Whereas John Smith of 29, Perry Street, Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Engineer, hath by his solemn declaration represented unto us that he is in possession of an invention for "Improvements in Sewing Machines," that he is the true and first inventor thereof, and that the same is not in use by any other person to the best of his knowledge and belief: And whereas the said inventor hath humbly prayed that we would be graciously pleased to grant unto him (herein-after together with his executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of them, referred to as the said patentee) our Royal Letters Patent for the sole use and advantage of his said invention: And whereas the said inventor hath by and in his complete specification particularly described the nature of his invention: And whereas we being willing to encourage all inventions which may be for the public good, are graciously pleased to condescend to his request : Know ye, therefore, that We, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant unto the said patentee our especial licence, full power, sole privilege, and authority, that the said patentee by himself, his agents, or licensees, and no others, may at all times hereafter during the term of years herein mentioned, make, use, exercise, and vend the said invention within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Isle of Man, in such manner as to him or them may seem meet, and that the said patentee shall have and enjoy the whole profit and advantage from time to time accruing by reason of the said invention, during the term of fourteen years from the date hereunder written of these presents: and to the end that the said patentee may have and enjoy the sole use and exercise and the full benefit of the said invention, We do by these presents for us our heirs and successors, strictly command all our subjects whatsoever within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Isle of Man, that they do not at any time during the continuance of the said term of fourteen years either directly or indirectly make use of or put in practice the said invention, or any part of the same, nor in anywise imitate the same, nor make or cause to be made any addition thereto or subtraction therefrom, whereby to pretend themselves the inventors thereof, without the consent licence or agreement of the said patentee in writing under his hand and seal, on pain of incurring such penalties as may be justly inflicted on such offenders for their contempt of this our Royal command, and of being answerable to the patentee according to law for his damages thereby occasioned: Provided that these our letters patent are on this condition, that, if at any time during the said term it be made to appear to us, our heirs, or successors, or any six or more of our Privy Council, that this our grant is contrary to law, or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects in general, or that the said invention is not a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Isle of Man, or that the said Patentee is not the first and true inventor thereof within this realm as aforesaid, these our letters patent shall forthwith determine, and be void to all intents and purposes, notwithstanding anything herein-before contained: Provided also, that if the said patentee shall not pay all fees by law required to be paid in respect of the grant of these letters patent, or in respect of any matter relating thereto at the time or times, and in manner for the time being by law provided; and also if the said patentee shall not supply or cause to be supplied, for our service all such articles of the said invention as may be required by the officers or commissioners administering any department of our service in such manner, at such times, and at and upon such reasonable prices and terms as shall be settled in manner for the time being by law provided, then, and in any of the said cases, these our letters patent, and all privileges and advantages whatever hereby granted shall determine and become void notwithstanding anything herein-before contained: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall prevent the granting of licences in such manner and for such considerations as they may by law be granted: And lastly, we do by these presents for us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the said patentee that these our letters patent shall be construed in the most beneficial sense for the advantage of the said patentee. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent this thousand eight hundred and one thousand eight hundred and (d) JONES' PATENT. and to be sealed as of the To be for One Invention Only. one The general object of the invention is the test by which to decide whether a provisional specification should be refused on the ground that it contains more than one invention. If you have a particular general object-e.g., to make rails rest more securely, and you describe two or three cognate devices for carrying it into effect, they are all one invention; but if there is no common purpose and no connection between them except that both are used in connection with rails, there would be two inventions. (Griff. 265.) (e) HEARSON'S PATENT. [1886] Hearson applied for a patent for "improvements in apparatus for rapidly heating flowing water, a part of which improvements is applicable to other purposes: "-Held, that the part italicised in the title, and the corresponding part in the provisional specification, must be omitted. (Griff. 266.) ROBINSON'S PATENT. Application for a patent for "improvements in the art of producing and utilizing induced electrical currents for telegraphy and other purposes: "-Held, that the patentee might elect either to protect his appliance for all purposes or to protect the improved telegraphic apparatus described; and the words "for telegraphy and other purposes," and the description of the telegraphic apparatus, were struck out. (Griff. 267.) Patent Agent. See Agent, p. 3. Patentee, Who may be Patents Act, 1883, sects. 4, 34, and 46, p. 272. First and true inventor of invention new in England, p. 272 (g) known but not published, p. 272 (h) communicated by British subject, p. 277 (b) simultaneous discoveries, p. 272 (i) servant while in employ of master, pp. 273 (k), 276 (w) must be able to claim the merit of the invention, pp. 275 (v), 276 (y) official inventing in course of his duty, p. 276 (z). Importer of Foreign invention may take out patent in his own name, pp. 276 (x), 278 (e), (y), 279 (h) where the communicant is a British subject, p. 278 (e) Who may be. PATENTS ACT, 1883, Sect. 4. (1.) Any person, whether a British subject or not, may make an application for a patent. (2.) Two or more persons may make a joint application for a patent, and a patent may be granted to them jointly. Sect. 46. In and for the purposes of this Act, "Patentee" means the person for the time being entitled to the benefit of a patent. Sect. 34. (1.) If a person possessed of an invention dies without making application for a patent for the invention, application may be made by, and a patent for the invention granted to, his legal representative. (2.) Every such application must be made within six months of the decease of such person, and must contain a declaration by the legal representative that he believes such person to be the true and first inventor of the invention. True and First Inventor. (9) EDGEBERRY v. STEPHENS. [1691] A grant of a monopoly may be to the first inventor, by the 21 Jac. 1; and, if the invention be new in England, a patent may be granted, though the thing was practised beyond sea before; for the statute speaks of new manufactures within this realm; so that, if it be new here, it is within the statute; for the Act intended to encourage new devices useful to the kingdom, and whether learned by travel or by study, it is the same thing. (2 Salk. 447; Comb. 84; Dav. P. C. 36; 1 Web. P. C. 35; 1 Carp. P. C. 35.) (h) DOLLOND'S PATENT. [1758] Patent for a new method of making the object-glasses of refracting telescopes. Before the date of the patent Dr. Hall had made and used object-glasses, of a precisely similar construction in his own observatory, but had not made any publication of their mode of construction or use :-Held, that this was not such a prior use as to invalidate the patent. (Cit. in Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 469, 470, 487; Dav. P. C. 170, 171, 172, 199; 1 Web. P. C. 43; 1 Carp. P. C. 28.) (i) FORSYTH v. RIVIERE. [1819] If several persons simultaneously discover the same thing, the party first communicating it to the public, under the protection of letters patent, becomes the legal inventor. (Chitty's Prerog. Crown, 182; 1 Web. P. C. 97; 1 Carp. P. C. 401.) ) R. v. WHEELER. Sci. fac. [1819] Abbott, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "If the patentee has not invented the matter or thing of which he represents himself to be the inventor, the consideration of the royal grant fails, and the grant consequently becomes void. And this will not be the less true, if it should happen that the patentee has invented some other matter or thing, of which, upon a due representation thereof, he might have been entitled to a grant of the exclusive use." (2 B. & Ald. 349.) (k) BARBER v. WALDUCK. N. P. [1823] Action for the infringement of a patent for an improvement in making hats. One of the plaintiff's witnesses proved that he had made the improvement, which was the subject of the patent, while employed in their workshop. Holroyd, J., ordered a nonsuit. (Cit. 1 C. & P. 567; 1 Carp. P. C. 438.) (1) BLOXAM v. ELSEE. N. P. [1825] Action for the infringement of a patent for "a machine for making paper in single sheets without seam or joinings." The principle of this invention consisted in receiving the pulp to be made into paper upon an endless wire web, stretched upon revolving cylinders, so that the paper was moved forward as fast as it was formed. The patentee discovered the principle of this invention, but the mechanical details necessary for carrying the invention into complete effect were numerous and complicated, and therefore he engaged Mr. Donkin, an engineer, to give him his professional assistance, and several parts of the machine were suggested to the patentee by Mr. Donkin. It was objected by the defendants that the patentee, under these circumstances, could not be the inventor; but it was answered that Mr. Donkin was merely acting as the patentee's servant, and the objection was not sustained. (I C. & P. 567; 1 Web. P. C. 132, n.; 1 Carp. P. C. 434.) a (n) LEWIS v. MARLING. [1829] Action for an infringement of a patent for certain improvements on shearing machines. It was proved by the defendant, that the specification of a similar machine had previously been enrolled in America, that a model of an exactly similar machine had been exhibited to three or four persons in England, and that a manufacturer in England had commenced the construction of machine from the American specification. Bayley, J., said: "If it had been shown that the plaintiff had seen the model, and had borrowed from it, he would not have been the true inventor, and would, therefore, have misled the Crown; but if I made a discovery, and am enabled to produce an effect from my own experiments, judgment, and skill, it is no objection that some one else has made a similar discovery by his mind, unless it has become public. So, if I introduce a discovery, bona fide made, I T may have a patent for it, though a person might have received privately a communication from abroad, which would have enabled him to have made the machine." (1 Web. P. C. 493.) (0) Minter v. WELLS. N. P. [1834] Action for the infringement of a patent for "improvements in the construction, making, or manufacturing of chairs." The patentee claimed "the application of a self-adjusting leverage to the back and seat of a chair, whereby the weight on the seat acts as a counterbalance to the pressure against the back of such chair, as above described." The defendants contended that the invention was made, not by the patentee, but by a person by the name of Sutton. Alderson, B., in summing up to the jury, said: "He (the patentee) claims under the patent, stating it in his petition to the Crown, that he is the true inventor of the machine in question; and if it could be shown that he was not the true inventor, but that some one else had invented it, the Crown is deceived in that suggestion, which was the foundation on which it granted the patent; and then the law is, that a patent obtained under such circumstances would be void, and no action could be maintained against a party for the infringement of the patent, by reason of the suggestion to the Crown not being true." (1 Web. P. C. 127; 1 Carp. P. C. 622.) (P) CORNISH v. KEENE. N. P. [1835] Action for the infringement of a patent, which was held invalid for want of novelty. Tindal, C.J., in summing up to the jury, said: "Sometimes it is a material question to determine whether the party who got the patent was the real and original inventor or not, because these patents are granted as a reward, not only for the benefit that is conferred upon the public by the discovery, but also to the ingenuity of the first inventor; and, although it is proved that it is a new discovery so far as the world is concerned, yet if anybody is able to show that although that was new-that the party who got the patent was not the man whose ingenuity first discovered it, that he had borrowed it from A. or B., or taken it from a book that was printed in England, and which was open to all the world-then, although the public had the benefit of it, it would become an important question whether he was the first and original inventor of it." (1 Web. P. C. 507.) (9) LOSH v. HAGUE. N. P. [1838] Abinger, C.B.: "If a man claims by his patent a number of things, as being the inventor of them, whether they consist of improvements or original inventions, and it turns out that some of them be not original and not improvements, his patent is void." (1 Web. P. C. 203.) (7) Gibson v. BraND. N. P. [1841] Tindal, C.J., in summing up to the jury in this case, said: |