4. A specification which describes one only out of many kinds of means or sets of proportions may be good, but a specification of this character was held bad where extended experiment and research were necessary to discover what kinds of means or proportions other than those described would produce any useful result. MAXIM-NORDENFELT GUNS AND AMMUNITION CO., LD., v. ANDERSON, p. 285.

5. A Patentee who discovers a valuable invention does not invalidate his patent merely because he claims for a subsidiary purpose far less valuable, unless the subsidiary claim has absolutely no utility, or has been anticipated or required no invention. ADAMANT STONE AND PAVING CO., LD. v. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL, p. 22.

6. If in a Provisional Specification which describes a valuable part of an invention, there is also described, as an alternative to that part, something which turns out not to be valuable and is abandoned in the final specification, such abandonment does not affect the validity of the claim for the invention, disregarding the omitted alternative part, or deprive the Patentee of the right to say that he first discovered and gave to the public the benefit of the valuable part which was retained. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. THE EAST LONDON RUBBER CO., p. 98.

STAY OF EXECUTION.

Where, on a petition for revocation of a patent, an order for revocation is made, the Court can stay execution of the order pending an appeal, unless its discretion clearly be wrongly exercised. Re ARMSTRONG'S PATENT, p. 747.

STAY OF INJUNCTION, TERMS OF. See THE NORTH BRITISH RUBBER Co., LD. v. THE GORMULLY AND JEFFERY MANUFACTURING Co., p. 302.

SUBJECT-MATTER. See also NOVELTY.

The

1. Improvements in pince-nez or double eyeglasses, consisting of a combination of details which were old, held not to be subject-matter.-Action for infringement of two patents.-Combination of old materials for old purposes.-Subject-matter.Anticipation.-Invalidity of patents.-The action was for infringement of two patents for improvements in pince-nez double eyeglasses. Defendant denied infringement, and alleged that the patents were invalid on various grounds, including want of novelty and subjectmatter, and anticipation by prior Specifications and prior user. The Plaintiff claimed that his invention was a combination of a rigid bridge, pivoted placquets, and spring arms. Held, by the Court of Appeal (affirming the Judge at the trial), that the combination was not such a novel invention as could form the subject-matter of a patent, and that the invention, if any, was anticipated. WOOD v. RAPHAEL, p. 496.

2. A patent for improvements in and connected with ice tanks held to have been anticipated and to be invalid for want of subject-matter.-Action for infringement of patent.-Validity.—

Subject-matter.-Alleged anticipation.-Prior user-Prior publication. -The Patentee of a patent for "Improvements in and connected with "ice tanks" brought an action for infringement of his patent. The Patentee had six claims claiming substantially for a combination of a number of parts. The Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiff's alleged improvements contained no invention, and were anticipated by prior Specifications, prior user, and prior publication. Held, that the Plaintiff's invention was anticipated, and his Patent was invalid for want of subject-matter. SIDDELEY V. THE LONDON HYGIENIC ICE Co., LD., p. 514.

3. An improvement in pulp strainers used in paper-making, held to show invention, and to be good subject-matter.-Patent.-Infringement.-Action for interdict.-Defence that Patentee was not the true and first inventor. Alleged anticipation. - Subject-matter.— Novelty.-Construction of Specification.-In 1882, B. obtained provisional protection for an invention to cause the diaphragm in a pulp strainer, used in paper-making, to pulsate-that is, to move up and down -by forcing under it jets of steam or compressed air. He explained that the vat for pulp, of which the diaphragm formed part, might be stationary, but it was by preference mounted on trunnions at the ends, and it had a rocking motion imparted to it by a rotating eccentric or in any other convenient way, the purpose of the rocking action being to wash off fibrous matters from the pulp before it was drawn off through a strainer on to the diaphragm. B.'s invention was purchased by a firm of founders, but never used. On the 7th of October 1891, W. obtained a patent for improvements in apparatus for straining paper pulp. The effect of these improvements was to cause the vat in which the pulp was placed to oscillate at the same time that the diaphragm, or lower bottom of the vat, pulsated, and without tearing the diaphragm or the strips of rubber by which it was fixed to the sides of the vat. This he did by carrying down the ends of the vat so as to place them on trunnions on which the vat oscillated, the trunnions being so placed that the centre of oscillation coincided with the centre of the rotating shaft moving the diaphragm. He stated the improvement to consist in "imparting an "oscillating or rocking motion to the vat or vessel in which the straining operation is effected, and in constructive arrangements con"nected therewith." On the 7th of March 1894, C. obtained a patent for an invention relating to improvements in pulp-strainers of papermaking machines. He claimed "the means whereby the back of the "vat is intermittently lifted and lowered so as to prevent the refuse "matter from being carried back over the strainer plates." The object aimed at was to wash the fibrous matter off the strainer plates by a combined oscillation of the vat with a raising of the diaphragm or of the vat. C. claimed that the raising and lowering in the case of his machine was merely a tilt, which was effected by means of a crank-pin in a disc on the end of a worm spindle, which crank-pin worked in a slot in the lower end of an adjustable connecting-rod. C. claimed that this intermittent tilt, as distinguished from the continuous raising and lowering in the case of W.'s machine, was an improvement upon all existing machines. W. raised an action to interdict C. from making, selling, and using his machine, on the ground that it was substantially the same as the Complainer's patent machine. C. defended, on the ground that his machine was distinct from the Complainer's, and, even if it were the same, that the Complainer's invention having been anticipated by B., who had disclosed the idea of oscillation combined with pulsation, no action could lie. It was proved that the vats used in the machines were similar to each other, and that the difference between the two consisted chiefly in the difference in the form of

66

motion imparted to the vat, the motion in the Complainer's machine being continuous through an equal arc on each side of the perpendicular, while that in the Respondents' was intermittent, and moved the vat to one side of the perpendicular only. The Respondents claimed that their mode of oscillation was superior in respect that the fibrous matter could be more conveniently carried off from the one side. Held, by the Lord Ordinary, (1) that there had been no anticipation of W. by B., because B., while disclosing the advantage of oscillation combined with pulsation, invented nothing whereby the rocking motion of the vat and the motion of the diaphragm could be reconciled; and (2) that C. infringed W. by adopting W.'s expedient for moving the vat without tearing the diaphragm in order to produce an intermittent tilt combined with a rocking motion of the vat, which in pulp-straining had the same efficacy as continuous pulsation combined with rocking motion of the vat. Held, by the Inner House, (1) that there had been no anticipation of W. by B.; (2) that W.'s invention, although simple, disclosed good subject-matter; (3) that C. had infringed W.; and (4) that, reading W.'s Specification and Drawings together, there was no ambiguity in the Specification where it described the shaft for pulsating the diaphragm as being "in line with and parallel to" the axis on which the vat oscillated. JOHN WHITE v. BERTRAMS, LD., pp. 501, 735.

66

4. Patent for the construction and use of porous moulds for moulding decorative or other slabs and blocks held to be useful to require invention and to be good subject-matter.-Patent for process of manufacturing artificial stone, which consisted in grinding to a coarse powder refuse-destructor clinker, mixing it with a suitable binding material, to make a concrete, and submitting the same to great pressure in porous moulds, held invalid for want of subject-matter.-Action for infringement of two patents.Subject-matter. Alleged anticipation. Alleged disconformity. Utility-Invention.-Infringement.-Subsidiary claim.--This was an action for the infringement of two patents, in the first of which the claim was for " the construction and use of porous moulds for moulding "decorative or other slabs and blocks, substantially as above described," and in the second of which the claim was " for the process of manufacturing artificial stone, which consists in grinding to a coarse 66 powder refuse-destructor clinker, mixing it with a suitable binding "material, to make a concrete, and submitting the same to great pressure in porous moulds, substantially as herein set forth." The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged that both patents were useless and were invalid, on the grounds, inter alia, of want of subjectmatter and anticipation. Held, that the second patent was invalid on the ground of want of subject-matter; that the first patent was useful, required invention, and was good subject-matter, and had not been anticipated; and that the Defendants had infringed the first patent. A Patentee who discovers a valuable invention does not invalidate his patent merely because he claims for a subsidiary purpose far less valuable, unless the subsidiary claim has absolutely no utility, or has been anticipated, or required no invention. Usual set off as to costs ordered. ADAMANT STONE AND PAVING CO., LD. v. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL, p. 11.

66

5. Where different machines of a certain general class or character are well known, if a person selects one specially adapted for his purpose to effect a new object, and with the result of producing a new article, or an old

article in a substantially more expeditious and economical way than it was produced before, then he may properly claim, as subject-matter of a patent, that machine as applied to the new object, even though he could not have claimed the machine per se, that is to say, without limitation as to its application. ADAMANT STONE AND PAVING CO., LD. v. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL, p. 21.

6. New use of an old machine cannot be subject-matter of a patent, and if the old machine is patented, any use of it for any purpose to which it can be applied is an infringement. THE NORTH BRITISH RUBBER CO., LD. v. THE GORMULLY AND JEFFERY MANUFACTURING CO., p. 298.

7. An eyelet for boots &c., made of metal and coated both above and below the flange with celluloid so as to provide a permanent facing for the eyelet, held not good subject-matter. RIEKMANN v. THIERRY, p. 105.

THREATS (ACTION TO RESTRAIN).

1. In an action for an infringement of a patent, a motion by the Defendants to restrain threats was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiffs, having brought their action, were acting within their rights.-Defence and counterclaim that Defendants were licensees.-Motion by Defendants to restrain threats.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 32.-Injunction granted.-Appeal.-Appeal allowed, and motion dismissed, with costs.-The Plaintiff's in this case. brought an action to restrain infringement of a patent for improvements in rubber tyres. The Defendants, by their Defence, alleged that the tyres complained of as infringements were made and sold under a license granted to predecessors of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs issued a certain circular and letters, which, in effect, stated that the Defendants were not entitled to sell the tyres they were selling. The Defendants then gave notice of motion to restrain the Plaintiffs from representing by letters and circulars that the Defendants were not authorized to make and sell such tyres. Kekewich, J., granted an injunction to restrain the issue of such circulars and letters. The Plaintiffs appealed. Held, that under the proviso to Section 32 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, the Plaintiffs, having brought an action for infringement, were entitled to issue the circulars and letters, and the appeal was allowed, and the motion was dismissed, with costs. THE DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. THE NEW SEDDON PNEUMATIC TYRE AND SELF-CLOSING TUBE CO., LD., p. 332.

2. Ex-parte motion for injunction refused.-Patent.-Action to restrain threats.-Ex-parte motion for interlocutory injunction restraining issue of circular.-Injunction not granted.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Sec. 32.-The Plaintiff Company, formed for the purpose of purchasing a patent, sent copies of their prospectus to various newspapers for insertion, on the 5th of November 1897. The prospectus stated that the list of subscribers would be opened on the 5th of November and closed on the 8th of November. The Defendant Company, the assignees of another patent, sent a circular to all the leading newspapers for publication simultaneously with the Plaintiff's' prospectus. The Plaintiffs, having commenced an action to restrain the Defendants from alleging that the patent, under which the Plaintiffs proposed to work, was an infringement of the Defendants' patent, and from using threats, moved for an injunction ex-parte to restrain the Defendants, over the 8th of November, from issuing the circular. Held, by BYRNE, J.,

D

and the COURT OF APPEAL that it was not a proper case for granting an injunction ex-parte. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD. v. THE CASTNER-KELLNER ALKALI CO., LD., p. 939.

3. Motion for injunction refused.-Action for infringement of patent.Action to restrain threats.-Motion for injunction to restrain threats.— Alleged mala fides.-Solicitors of Defendants.-Motion refused.-The I. Company and the S. Company being competing Companies in the manufacture of incandescent mantles, the S. Company brought an action for infringement of a patent. The action was approaching trial, when the S. Company's solicitors issued a circular giving notice of the action and stating that they were advised that the I. Company's mantles were infringements, and warning purchasers that they exposed themselves to like actions, and, in the event of the S. Company succeeding, that the purchasers would be liable to pay damages and costs and to have their mantles destroyed by order of the Court. The I. Company thereupon commenced an action to restrain the issue of the circular, and moved for an interlocutory injunction against the S. Company, their solicitors, and other agents. An ex-parte injunction was granted by Kekewich, J., and the motion was now heard on evidence. The I. Company contended that the circular was issued malâ fide on the following grounds :-(1) That it stated more than the S. Company's legal rights; (2) that the patent was an old one, and that the I. Company had been carrying on the same process for nine years to the knowledge of the Patentees, and that the S. Company did not, bona fide, believe in their case. Held, that the circular was perfectly accurate if read carefully, but that ignorant persons might misread it; that as it was strictly correct, no evidence of malice could be drawn from it; that the circumstances explained the delay in bringing the infringement action; that there was no evidence that the S. Company knew of any infringement; and that there was no evidence of mala fides. The motion was refused. An intimation was given that the motion against the solicitors was in no way justified, and that the action against them ought to be discontinued. INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT Co., LD. v. THE SUNLIGHT INCANDESCENT GAS LAMP Co., LD., p. 180.

4. Evidence of malice discussed. Ibid.

5. Motion to restrain threats. -No order except that costs be costs in the action.-Action to restrain threats and infringements.-Cross action to restrain infringement of patent. Further action by Plaintiff in first action to restrain threats and passing off-Motions in each action in terms of writ.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 32.-Due diligence.-Terms of order.-A. commenced an action against B. to restrain threats, and to restrain infringement of A.'s patent. B. then commenced an action against A. and C. for infringement of his patent, and A. and C. commenc d a third action to restrain the issue of a threatening circular, and also to restrain passing off lubricators not being A. and C.'s as and for their lubricators. The Plaintiffs in each action then moved for injunctions according to the relief claimed in the actions. A. and C. alleged, on the motion to restrain threats, that B. had not brought himself under the proviso to Section 32 of the Patents, &c Act, 1883, by his infringement action, as his threats were not made bona fide, and his action was not brought with due diligence. No order was made on any of the motions, except that costs be costs in the action, and the Defendants in each case undertook to keep such accounts as they might be liable to. The actions were directed to be