« PreviousContinue »
machines, which sewing machines were infringements of the
at his shop
in his workshop at in the county of by himself, his servants or agents, used a sewing machine, which sewing machine was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent (m).
(Further and better particulars of breaches or objections obtained by summons, common form.)
13. ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF FURTHER PARTICULARS
OF BREACHES. It is ordered that the plaintiffs within days from the date of this order deliver to Messrs. solicitors for the defendants, further and better particulars in writing of the breaches alleged to have been committed by the defendant, upon which the defendants intend to rely on the trial of the
questions directed to be tried by the said order dated, &c., Pages and specifying by reference to the pages and lines the part of the lines of specification. plaintiffs' specification in respect of which such alleged breaches
have been committed ; and let the time within which the defendants are to deliver to the plaintiffs solicitors particulars in writing of the objections to the letters patent in the plaintiffs' writ mentioned, be enlarged until the twenty-first day after the delivery of such further and better particulars, costs of application to be costs in the cause (n).
(m) In the case of a patent for a of the claims infringement is combination, or where there are alleged. several distinct claims, the par- (n) Lamb v. Nottingham Maniticulars of breaches should specify facturers' Co., M.R., 14th March, what portion of the combination 1874, B. 776. has been infringed, or as to which
14. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.
5. [The denial of any other matter of fact affecting the validity of the patent.]
6. The patent was not assigned to the plaintiff.
15. PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS IN ACTIONS FOR INFRINGE
MENT, AND ON PETITION FOR REVOCATION (6).
Defendant. Take notice, that the defendant (or petitioner], will, on the trial of this cause, rely on the following objections to impeach the letters patent in the statement of claim (or petition] herein mentioned. 1. That the plaintiff [or alleged inventor] was not the first First
inventor. and true inventor of the said invention within this realm.
2. That the alleged invention was not subject matter of a Subjectgrant of letters patent, within the meaning of the 6th section matter. of the Statute of Monopolies (that is, the act of the 21st year of King James I. ch. 3).
(0) See p. 293 et seq.
Utility. 3. That the alleged invention was not useful to the public. Insufficiency of 4. That the specification of the said invention was not specification.
sufficient, and was unintelligible. Novelty. 5. That the alleged invention was not a new invention as to
the public use and exercise thereof within this realm. Prior publica
6. That the alleged invention was published at the Patent tion in speci- Office in a specification, dated the fication.
day of and numbered , prior to the date of the said letters
patent. Prior publica- 7. That the alleged invention was, prior to the date of the tion in book. said letters patent, published in a book, which on the
, was in the British Museum Library and open for public inspection ; the title of the said book was and the pages of the said book particularly referred to are numbered
and Prior us 8. That the alleged invention was used prior to the date of
the said letters patent, in the following manner, that is to say,
by at Part old.
9. That a material part of the alleged invention, namely, that part which refers to was not new at the date of the said letters patent, having been used by at
day of Combination 10. That the plaintiff does not sufficiently distinguish and not distin. guished.
point out in his specification which of the matters and things therein mentioned he claims to have invented, and which he does not claim to have invented, or admits to be old.
11. The defendant will also rely, as examples of prior publication, upon the following specifications, filed with the Commissioners of Patents, and will object that the specification of the plaintiff's patent claims some of the matters thereby patented or specified, that is to say [enumerate specifications).
Defendant's Solicitor or Agent.
16. ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF FURTHER PARTICULARS OF
OBJECTIONS. Let the order dated 6th July, 1876, whereby it was ordered that the defendants should on or before the 20th July, 1876, deliver to the plaintiffs further and better particulars of objections, stating therein the names and addresses of the persons by whom, and the places where, and the dates at, and the manner in which the process of, &c., was known and publicly practised in England before the 8th March, 1864 [date of letters patent], and that in default thereof the words from, and after the words “in a dry state," in the 6th paragraph of the statement of defence, which had been delivered in this action, to the end of the said 6th paragraph, should be struck out; and in that case no evidence should be given by the defendants on the trial of this action of such prior publication, and that defendants should pay to the plaintiffs their costs of the application, to be taxed, &c., BE VARIED, and as varied be as follows:
Let the defendants on or before the deliver to the plaintiffs further and better particulars of objections under the paragraph of the statement of defence on which they mean to rely at the trial, stating therein the place or places at or in which, and in what manner, the process of printing upon tin or metal surfaces by direct impression by means of damp stones is alleged to have been used or published prior to the
, 1864 (p).
17. ORDER FOR LIBERTY TO AMEND PARTICULARS OF
OBJECTIONS BY ADDING FRESH OBJECTIONS UPON TERMS.
Let the plaintiff, within six weeks from the date of this order elect whether he will discontinue this suit, and if the plaintiff shall elect to discontinue this suit, and shall give notice thereof to the defendants within six weeks from the date of this order, refer it to the taxing master to tax the defendants their costs up to and including the 23rd February, 1875 (delivery of the original particulars of objection), and to tax
(p) Flower v. Lloyd, C.A., 2nd August, 1876, A. 1523 ; 25 W. R.
17. Varying order of V.-C. B., 6th July, 1876, A. 1252.
the plaintiff's costs of this suit subsequently to the said 23rd February, 1875, to the date of this order, and the taxing master is to set off the costs of the plaintiff and of the defendants to be so respectively taxed, and certify to which of them the balance after such set-off is due, and let such balance be paid by the party from whom, to the party to whom the same shall be certified to be due. And if the plaintiff shall not give notice to the defendants of his discontinuance of this suit within the time aforesaid let the defendants be at liberty to add to the particulars of objections to the validity of the plaintiff's letters patent, &c., which have been already delivered by the defendants, the following further objections to be relied on by the defendants at the hearing of this cause, viz. ( particulars of new objections proposed to be introduced by amendment). And let defendants, Moules, &c., Co. pay to the plaintiff, A. F. Baird, his costs of this application to be taxed, &c., liberty to apply (9).
18. INTERROGATORIES. Interregatories may be delivered in the common form, subject to the Rules of 1883, by either party, notwithstanding the delivery of particulars. Enquiry may be made by the plaintiff as to the names and addresses of the persons by whom prior user is alleged to have been made as well as the places where the prior user has taken place (r).
19. ORDER FOR LIBERTY TO APPLY FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
SPECIFICATION WHILE ACTION PENDING. That the plaintiff be at liberty to apply to the Patent Office for leave to amend his specification on which his letters patent of the 12th day of February, 1879, No. 558 in the statement of claim mentioned, were granted, and his specification on which his letters patent of the 9th day of June, 1880, No. 2333 in the statement of claim mentioned, were granted by way of
(9) See Baird v. Moules, &c., Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 139 (n).
(r) Birch v. Mather, L. R., Ch. D. 629 ; see p. 303 et seq.