« PreviousContinue »
at all such times and as often as in the opinion of the said A. B. be requisite, on giving 3 days' notice to the plaintiffs to enter into some business premises to be selected by the plaintiffs, where the process or mode of working referred to in the specification mentioned in the Statement of Claim can be seen at work, and to inspect and examine there the whole of the machinery fitted in such mill, and to take such samples of the finished and unfinished products of the working of such machinery as in the opinion of the said A. B. may be necessary for the purposes of this action, And it is ordered that such machinery be put to regular work upon such inspection. The costs of this application are to be costs in the action ().
9. INSPECTION, AND ORDER FOR DELIVERY BY DEFENDANT
OF SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS.
[Title as above.] [Formal parts as above] may be at liberty, upon giving three days' previous notice in writing to the defendant's solicitors to enter upon the defendant's premises, and to inspect the type there used by the said defendants in their printing processes, as mentioned in the statement of claim in this action ; and that Samples for the defendant may be ordered to permit the plaintiff, his solicitors and agents, and one person to be named as aforesaid, to enter upon his prennises for the purpose aforesaid, and that said defendant may be further ordered to deliver to the plaintiff a competent part of the said type so used, on payment of a fair price for the same, and that the costs of this application may be costs in the action (9).
(f) The Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson, 55 L. J., Ch. 287 ; 3 P. O. R. at p. 14.
(g) This was the notice of motion in The Patent Type Founding Co. v. Walter, reported at 5 H. & N. 192 ; 29 L. J., Ex. 207 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 103 ; 1 L. T. Rep., N. S. 382. The samples of type in this case were required for the purpose of analysis.
Notice of motion for inspection must be supported by aflidavit ; a fair prima facie case of validity
and infringement must be made out. The order for inspection is frequently made upon the application for interlocutory injunction, and is sometimes made to include a cross order that the plaintiff shall perinit the defendant to see and inspect the patented machine at work, and also to take samples : Amies v. Kelsey, 22 L. J., Q. B. 84. The affidavit should show that there is such property or machinery as is required to be inspected, that the
10.-ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF DEFENDANT'S. PROCESS BY
EXPERTS. Order for Let I. and C., of, &c., be at liberty at all seasonable times, experts. and as often as requisite, on giving three days' notice to the
defendants, to enter into the business premises of the defendants where the process of decorating or printing tin and metal plates is carried on by the defendants, as stated in the plaintiff's statement of claim, and mentioned in the said affidavits, or some of them, and to inspect and examine there the whole of the process by which such printed and decorated tin (1) and metal plates are manufactured by the defendants, and to take, on paying the reasonable charges of the defendants for the same, samples of such plates, and upon and during such inspec
tion to make such observations as may be necessary and expeFull informa. dient for the purpose of obtaining full information and evidence tion.
of the mode by which such plates are manufactured by the defendants (i).
11.-STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
judgment, but ordered the defen. of England, 22 L. J., Ex. 26. It dant to verify by affidavit all the should also show what the patent different kinds of sewing machines is for, so that the Court or judge which he had sold since the last may see that there is necessity for
disclaimer entered by the plaintiff, the inspection. The order will not and to produce one of each sort for be granted on the plaintiff's appli. inspection. cation, unless the Court is satisfied (h) No order will be made on this that it is essential to enable him to
application for the inspection of prove his case : Batley v. Kynock, books, for which a separate order L. R., 19 Eq. 90 ; Meadows v. Kirk- must be obtained : Vidi v. Smith, mann, 29 L. J., Ex. 205. In The 3 E. & B. 989. Singer Manufacturing Company v. (1) Flower v. Lloyd, C.A., 5th Wilson, 13 W. R. 560, the Court July, 1876, A. 1254. refused to give the plaintiff inspec
, for an invention entitled “ Improvements in the manufacture of iron and steel.”
2. The plaintiff was the first and true inventor of the said First invention.
inventor. 3. The plaintiff claims an injunction to restrain the defen- Injunction, dant from further infringement, and that accounts may be damages, taken of the sales and profits made by the defendant by infringing the said letters patent (or in the alternative, £100 damages)
Particulars of breaches are delivered herewith.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
In the High Court of Justice.
Defendant. Statement of Claim. 1. The plaintiff C. D., by virtue of an assignment dated Assignment.
18 and duly registered, is the owner of certain letters patent, No. of 18 , granted to X. Y, for “ Improvements in the extracting mechanism of drop-down small arms," of which the said X. Y. is the first and true inventor. The plain- Licence. tiffs A. B. and C. are the sole licensees under the said letters patent.
2. The defendant is a gun manufacturer carrying on business at in the county of
3. The said letters patent are valid and of full force and effect.
4. The defendant has for some time past manufactured and sold both guns and gun actions fitted with ejecting mechanism made in infringement of the plaintiff's letters patent.
Account or damages.
THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM. 1. An injunction to restrain the defendant, his servant and agents, from making, using, and vending guns containing ejector mechanism or portions thereof made in infringement of the plaintiffs' letters patent, or made so as to be a mere colourable imitation of the invention therein contained.
2. An account of profits or, at the option of the plaintiffs, an enquiry as to damages.
3. Destruction of or delivery up by the defendant to the
Destruction or delivery of infringing articles.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
[Formal parts as above.] 1. By assignment dated
, X. Y. assigned to the plaintiff certain letters patent granted to him for an invention entitled “ Improvement in Ruffling Mechanism for Sewing Machines," dated day of
and numbered 13,503. 2. The said letters patent are valid.
3. The defendant has infringed and threatened to infringe the said letters patent in the manner and at the times mentioned in the particulars of breaches delivered herewith.
12.—PARTICULARS OF BREACHES (k).
1. The defendant on or about the day of at his
(k) See p. 286 et seq.
factory at , in the county of manufactured acetate of
the defendant sold to John Smith Selling. of , one parcel containing tons of acetate of soda manufactured by the defendant by the process and with the use of the machinery and appliances which form the subject-matter of the plaintiff's patent. 3. On the
the defendant sold, &c.
To Mr. E. F.,
PARTICULARS OF BREACHES.
[Formal parts as above.] 1. The defendants have since the date of the patent No. of 18 manufactured, or caused to be manufactured and sold, dye stuffs the same, or substantially the same, as the plaintiff's naphtol black.
2. The dye stuffs complained of are those sold by the defendants under the name of naphtol black 0. D.
3. The dye stuffs complained of are made according to the process
described and claimed in the plaintiff's specification in all respects (1)
PARTICULARS OF BREACHES.
[Formal parts as above.] 1. The defendant, on or about the day of factured at his factory at in the county of
manu- Making. sewing
(1) Settled by C.A., in Cassella v. Levinstein, 8 P. O. R. at p. 476.