The following cases relate to prior public user, which was formerly a bar to the grant of letters patent for an invention, but appears to be no longer so under the Act of 1883. In re SAMUDA; In re GRIFFITHS. [1846] (Cited Hindmarch, p. 534.) In re VINCENT'S PATENT. [1867] (L. R., 2 Ch. 341.) (g) Ex parte HENSON, In re ALCOCK'S PATENT. [1832] It was a matter of discretion with the Lord Chancellor whether he would allow a person to oppose the sealing of letters patent before him, when he had not already done so before the law officer. (1 Web. P. C. 432.) (h) In re CUTLER. [1839] Semble, the sealing of a patent will not be stopped merely on the ground of the alleged want of utility. Because 1st. the question cannot be successfully determined, and 2nd. if useless, the patent, when granted, would be of no value. (1 Web. P. C. 426.) (i) R. v. CUTLER. [1847] The effect of a caveat, lodged at the chambers of the AttorneyGeneral, was merely to entitle the party lodging it to notice. (3 C. & K. 215.) (j) In re FAWCETT'S PATENT. [1852] Where a caveat was lodged before the great seal was affixed to a patent, the Lord Chancellor declined to enter into the merits of the opposition, but referred the matter back to the AttorneyGeneral. (2 De G., M. & G. 439.) (k) In re CAMPBELL'S PATENT. [1853] Service of a petition for sealing a patent upon the solicitor of an opposing party, who was out of the jurisdiction, granted. (22 L. T. Rep. 93.) (1) In re RUSSELL'S PATENT. [1857] In general, where there is a doubt as to the validity of the grounds of opposition to a patent, the proper course is to grant the letters patent, as an error in refusing them would be irremediable, while one in granting them would not. (2 De G. & J. 130.) (m) In re SPENCE'S PATENT. [1859] Unless a patent is clearly bad, the Lord Chancellor will not refuse to seal it, as the effect of such refusal, if erroneous, would be irremediable, whereas the sealing a bad patent leaves every one at liberty to dispute it. (3 De G. & J. 523.) (n) In re MCKEAN'S PATENT. [1859] Where a petition to have the great seal affixed had been filed and the respondents served with notice two months before the first day of Michaelmas term, for which day the petition was answered, and the respondents only filed affidavits on the morning of that day:-Held, that they could not be read; and the patent was ordered to be sealed. (1 De G., F. & J. 2; 8 W. R. 1; 1 L. T., N. S., 19.) (0) In re BRENNAND'S PATENT. [1861] Leave was given to oppose the granting of letters patent, notwithstanding the time for entering an opposition had expired, the reason for the delay in entering such opposition being accounted for, and the matter was referred back to the Attorney-General. (7 Jur., N. S., 690; 4 L. T. Rep., N. S., 456.) (p) In re HEATHORN'S PATENT. [1864] Since the passing of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, the practice of entering caveats is discontinued unless special leave is obtained, and, therefore, the Lord Chancellor sealed a patent, notwithstanding at caveat was standing against it, no leave having been obtained. (10 Jur., N. S., 810; 10 L. T. Rep., N. S., 802.) (4) In re MITCHELL'S PATENT; In re BROTHERTON'S PATENT. [1867] A party who has not opposed the sealing of a patent before the law officer of the Crown under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, sect. 12, was not. allowed to oppose before the Lord Chancellor. (L. R., 2 Ch. 343.) (r) In re VINCENT'S PATENT. [1867] A person might give notice of objection, and oppose the sealing of a patent before the Lord Chancellor without previously applying to the Court for leave to enter opposition. The Lord Chancellor, on an application for sealing a patent, would not interfere with the decision of the law officer of the Crown, unless in case of fraud or surprise, or of some material fact having come to the knowledge of the party since the case was before the law officer. (L. R., 2 Ch. 341; 15 W. R. 524.) (8) Ex parte SHEFFIELD. [1872] In opposing the grant of letters patent, the burden is on the opponent to shew that the grant would be clearly wrong. Where the facts on which the opponent relies were within his knowledge when he opposed before the law officer, he could not, when before the Lord Chancellor, raise a new legal argument on these facts ; nor could he then bring forward evidence which he might have brought before the law officer. (L. R., 8 Ch. 237; 42 L. J. Ch. 356.) (t) In re GETHING. [1874] Where rival applicants had applied on the same day for patents, and had afterwards mutually agreed to withdraw opposition, letters patent bearing date the day of application were granted to one applicant, although letters patent bearing that date had already been granted to the other. (L. R., 9 Ch. 633.) (u) In re JOHNSON'S PATENT. [1878] In re SOMERSET AND WALKER'S PATENT. [1879]} The word caveat in 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, sect. 20, meant anything in the nature of opposition at any stage :-Held, accordingly, that where opposition had been entered, the Lord Chancellor had power to extend the time for filing the final specification beyond one month after the term of provisional protection. (13 Ch. D. 397.) (v) HEATH AND FROST'S PATENT. [1886] Patent for improvements in blasting cartridges opposed by Hardingham on the ground that the invention had been previously patented by McNab. Hardingham's only interest was as patent agent of McNab. The law officer held that Hardingham could not be heard, as by sect. 11 of the Patents Act, 1883, the only class entitled to be heard in opposition before the law officer are persons who are interested with a legitimate and real interest in the prior patent upon which an application is opposed, or persons who, while they have not patented the invention, have yet been the originators of it, from whom the person seeking the patent has obtained it. (Griff. 288.) (w) SPIEL'S APPLICATION. [1888] The opponents were the assignees of patents taken out by Johannes Spiel and of all improvements thereon, and they alleged that the present applicant, Adolf Spiel, was put forward by his brother Johannes in order to prevent them (the opponents) from getting the benefit under the assignment of the proposed patent for improvements :-Held, by the Comptroller-General, that he had no jurisdiction to enter into the circumstances under which the applicant became possessed of the invention. On appeal Clarke, S.G., held that even if the opponents proved the fraud they were not the legal representatives of Johannes Spiel and therefore could not oppose. (5 O. R. 281.) (x) AIREY'S APPLICATION. [1888] The notice of opposition in this case contained the number and date of the patent as required by the Act, but not the title also as required by the rules. The Comptroller-General allowed the opponent to amend, and said that he had no power to impose terms. (5 O. R. 348.) (y) DANIEL'S APPLICATION. [1888] Opposition successful. Under sect. 7 (6) of the Act of 1883 and rules 11, 12, 13 & 15 of the Rules of 1883, the ComptrollerGeneral has power to hear and determine whether the applicant's invention and the prior patent are the same irrespective of any opposition, and therefore it is not ultra vires for him to allow the opponent to amend his notice of objections. (5 O. R. 413.) Opposition on the ground that the Invention was obtained from the opponent. (z) In re Fox. [1812] The owners of a patent opposed the grant of a patent for improvements therein, on the ground that the alleged invention was borrowed from their patent. The resemblance of the two inventions was denied. The Lord Chancellor sealed the patent. (1 Web. P. C. 431; 1 V. & B. 67.) (a) Ex parte HENSON, in re ALCOCK'S PATENT. [1832] On affidavit that an invention, for which letters patent were about to be sealed, is the invention of the deponent, and had been obtained by a breach of confidence, the Lord Chancellor allowed an opposition at the great seal, though the opponent had not opposed the grant before the law officer. The Lord Chancellor holding that the parties under the circumstances ought to be heard, but that such right ought to be exercised exceedingly sparingly, he referred the matter to the Attorney-General. (1 Web. P. C. 432.) (b) LOTT'S APPLICATION. [1853] This application was refused by the Lord Chancellor on the ground that Lott had obtained the main idea of the invention from Hadden, who had previously lodged a provisional specification. (John, 168.) In re RUSSELL'S PATENT. [1857] Where it appeared that a master and his foreman had both invented certain improvements, for which the master sought letters patent:-Held, that they ought only to be granted on the terms of their being vested in trustees for the master and the foreman. (2 De G. & J. 130.) Coleridge, S.G., granted a warrant to servants for inventions the results of experiments paid for by their employers, the opponents, on condition that the provisional specifications should be submitted to the opponents, and the portions objected to struck out. (John, 165.) (e) ABEL'S APPLICATION. [1876] The law officer will not look at the circumstances under which an importer of an invention has obtained it abroad. (John, 169.) (ƒ) MACFARLANE'S APPLICATION. [1883] The company of which Macfarlane was manager successfully opposed on the ground that the invention was obtained from their engineer and chemist. (John, 168.) (c) HOSKINS'S PATENT. [1884] Patent for improvements in folding cots and hammock frames opposed by Needham on the ground that the applicant had obtained the invention from him and that he had previously patented it. A firm with which Needham was negotiating as to a licence had sent a specimen cot with some alterations from Needham's specification to a firm of which Hoskins was a member, for the purpose of ascertaining a price. Hoskins sent back a manufactured sample which was returned to him for alterations and again returned by him. Shortly afterwards Hoskins applied for this patent which Needham alleged was substantially for the same invention as his. Herschell, S.G.: "I do not think that this patent can be allowed to go except as an improvement on the opponent's. It is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that this improved cot which Hoskins seeks to patent never would have been seen or heard of had not Hoskins had before him Needham's cot. . . The parts differ and the mode of carrying out the idea differs, but there is not a single idea to be found in the one that is not to be found in the other arrangement modified. . . . Can I allow, not as being an improvement or modification of the prior patent, but as an independent patent which the person taking it out is entitled to work independently, this apparatus or cot? I am satisfied that I cannot. I am satisfied, moreover, that I should be doing a very cruel kindness to Hoskins were I to allow him a patent on his present specification, because I am satisfied there is neither any judge nor any jury who would not hold he was infringing Needham's patent, and therefore I should not be giving him any advantage.... No doubt the applicant did apply a considerable amount of original thought, and I am quite prepared to believe invention, in improving the opponent's and making a better cot, . . . and so far, as he has made it better, he is entitled to a patent for the improvement. . . . I allow the grant on condition that Hoskins inserts in his complete specification a statement that his invention is an improvement upon Needham's." (Griff. 291.) (d) EADIE'S PATENT. [1885] Application for patent for improvements in travellers opposed: (1) by Bourcart on the ground that a material part of the invention had been obtained from him; (2) by Clark on the ground that he had already patented a material part on communication from Bourcart. The Comptroller-General was of opinion that the applicant's specification was based upon the idea of a traveller with a straight part first communicated to them by Bourcart, and sealed a patent to Messrs. Eadie and Bourcart as joint inventors. (Griff. 279.) (e) EVANS AND OTWAY'S PATENT. [1885] The evidence being conflicting, the Deputy Comptroller having |