machines, which sewing machines were infringements of the plaintiff's patent. Using. which sewing machine was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. day of , in his 3. The defendant, on or about the 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.) Pages and lines of specification. 13. ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF FURTHER PARTICULARS OF BREACHES. It is ordered that the plaintiffs within date of this order deliver to Messrs. days from the 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., specifying by reference to the pages and lines the part of the 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 combination, or where there are several distinct claims, the particulars of breaches should specify what portion of the combination has been infringed, or as to which of the claims infringement is alleged. (n) Lamb v. Nottingham Manufacturers' Co., M.R., 14th March, 1874, B. 776. 14. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. In the High Court of Justice. 1. The defendant did not infringe the patent. 2. The invention was not new. 3. The plaintiff was not the first and true inventor. 4. The invention was not useful. 5. [The denial of any other matter of fact affecting the validity of the patent.] 6. The patent was not assigned to the plaintiff. Particulars of objections are delivered herewith. 15. PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS IN ACTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT, AND ON PETITION FOR REVOCATION (0). 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 and true inventor of the said invention within this realm. inventor. 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. Insufficiency of specification. Novelty. Prior publication in specification. Prior publication in book. Prior user. Part old. Combination not distinguished. 3. That the alleged invention was not useful to the public. 4. That the specification of the said invention was not sufficient, and was unintelligible. 5. That the alleged invention was not a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof within this realm. 6. That the alleged invention was published at the Patent Office in a specification, dated the day of and 7. That the alleged invention was, prior to the date of the said letters patent, published in a book, which on the day of 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 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 on the day of at 9. That a material part of the alleged invention, namely, that part which refers to was not new at the date of the 10. That the plaintiff does not sufficiently distinguish and 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]. Yours, &c., L. Defendant's Solicitor or Agent. To Mr. A. B., Plaintiff's Solicitor. 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 day of 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. 484 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 (q). 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 (q) See Baird v. Moules, &c., Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 139 (n). (r) Birch v. Mather, L. R., 22 Ch. D. 629; see p. 303 et seq. |