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 (ƒ).

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 analysis. solicitors and agents, and one person to be named as aforesaid, to enter upon his premises 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 (g).

(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 affidavit ; a fair prima facie case of validity

and infringement must be made
out. The order for inspection is
frequently made upon the applica-
tion for interlocutory injunction,
and is sometimes made to include a
cross order that the plaintiff shall
permit 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

Order for experts.

10.-ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF DEFENDANT'S PROCESS BY EXPERTS.

Let I. and C., of, &c., be at liberty at all seasonable times, 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 (h) 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 inspection to make such observations as may be necessary and expeFull informa- dient for the purpose of obtaining full information and evidence of the mode by which such plates are manufactured by the defendants (i).

tion.

Infringement.

1. The defendant has infringed the plaintiff's patent, numbered granted for the term of fourteen years from the

inspection is necessary for the pur-
pose of the action: Shaw v. Bank
of England, 22 L. J., Ex. 26. It
should also show what the patent
is for, so that the Court or judge
may see that there is necessity for
the inspection. The order will not
be granted on the plaintiff's appli-
cation, unless the Court is satisfied
that it is essential to enable him to
prove his case: Batley v. Kynock,
L. R., 19 Eq. 90; Meadows v. Kirk-
In The
mann, 29 L. J., Ex. 205.
Singer Manufacturing Company v.
Wilson, 13 W. R. 560, the Court
refused to give the plaintiff inspec-

tion of the defendant's stock before judgment, but ordered the defendant to verify by affidavit all the different kinds of sewing machines which he had sold since the last disclaimer entered by the plaintiff, and to produce one of each sort for inspection.

(h) No order will be made on this application for the inspection of books, for which a separate order must be obtained: Vidi v. Smith, 3 E. & B. 969.

(i) Flower v. Lloyd, C.A., 5th July, 1876, A. 1254,

day of
, 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.

account.

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.

1. The plaintiff C. D., by virtue of an assignment dated. day of , 18 , and duly registered, is the owner of certain letters patent, No. of 18, granted to X. Y. for" Improve

Assignment.

ments 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.

at

2. The defendant is a gun manufacturer carrying on business 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.

Injunction.

Account or damages.

Destruction

or delivery of infringing articles.

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 plaintiffs of all guns or portions of guns made in infringement of the plaintiffs' rights.

4. Costs.

Using.

[Formal parts as above.]

1. By assignment dated day of

, 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.

The following are the particulars of the breaches of the letters patent complained of in the statement of claim herein :— 1. The defendant on or about the

day of

(k) See p. 286 et seq.

at his

factory at

in the county of

manufactured acetate of soda by the process and with the use of the machinery and appliances which form the subject-matter of the plaintiff's patent.

2. On the day 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

day of

the defendant sold, &c.
Yours, &c.,
X. Y.,

Plaintiff's solicitor.

To Mr. E. F.,

Defendant's solicitor.

PARTICULARS OF BREACHES.

Form 2.

[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 O. 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).

(7) Settled by C.A., in Cassella v. Levinstein, 8 P. O. R. at p. 476.