Page images
PDF
EPUB

would not grant a second patent in derogation of a former grant, and would not assume, without scire facias, that the first patent was void. See Ex parte Bailey (L. R. 8 Ch. 61) and Ex parte Henry (L. R. 8 Ch. 167, 169).

The rule did not, however, apply where mala fides was present. Thus, where a servant having filed a provisional specification, his master afterwards filed a provisional specification for the same invention, and then a complete specification, and obtained a patent. There was grave suspicion that the master had surreptitiously obtained a knowledge of the servant's invention, and the servant's patent, notwithstanding the existence of the master's patent, was ordered to be sealed and dated as of the day of his application (Ex parte Scott and Young, L. R. 6 Ch. 274). The consequence of this would be that by virtue of section 24 of the Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852, acts done under the patent first sealed would be an infringement of the patent with an earlier date. (See Saxby v. Hennett, L. R. 8 Ex. 210.)

In Ex parte Dering (13 Ch. D. 393), where two applicants had applied on the same day for the same invention, Lord Cairns, C., refused to follow the decision in Ex parte Bates and Redgate as to the postdating of the patent, on the ground that the legislature intended patentees to have the full term of protection given by the provisional specification, and ordered the applicant's patent to be sealed, and dated as of the day of application, although the sealing was opposed by the second applicant, who had already had the Great Seal affixed.

When the opposition was founded on a prior patent. granted to the opponent, and the applicant alleged that the invention for which that patent was granted had been communicated by him in confidence to the patentee

who had fraudulently obtained a patent for it, the Lord Chancellor directed the applicant's patent to be sealed, so as to give him an opportunity of trying the question in a court of law. Re Vincent's Patent (L. R. 2 Ch. D. 341). And see sect. 35 of the Patent Act 1883.

Where fraud could be made out, or where it was shown that the applicant had derived the principle of the invention from a rival applicant, the Seal would be refused to the former.

In April, 1853, Hadden made application for a patent for a method of making gun-cartridges. His plan obviated the necessity of biting off the end of the cartridge when the gun was being loaded, and its main feature consisted in making it weaker at one end, so that when rammed down it burst open and the powder ran into the breech of the gun. After lodging the provisional specification, Hadden had some conversation with Lott, to whom he described the general features of the invention. Shortly afterwards Lott applied for a patent for an invention having a similar object, and his specification described a collapsing chamber in the cartridge to hold the charge of powder, which chamber would be burst open by the action of the ramrod. This method of carrying out the general idea was different from the one adopted by Hadden. The SolicitorGeneral, having issued his warrant for the sealing of Lott's patent, the case was carried before the Lord Chancellor, who held that the two inventions were substantially the same, the material part in each being that one end of the cartridge was made weaker than the other with a view to its bursting under the action of the ramrod. Holding that Lott had obtained this idea from Hadden, the Chancellor refused to seal Lott's patent.

N

Herschell, S. G., in the case of Macfarlane's Patent (March 1883), opposed by the Animal Charcoal Company Limited, declined to issue the warrant under the following circumstances. Macfarlane was manager of the company and Jones was a consulting engineer, and Ingham a chemist also employed by the company. It was alleged that Macfarlane was not the inventor of his alleged invention, but that it consisted partly of suggestions made by Jones and partly of suggestions made by Ingham, all of which had been experimented upon in the company's works under Macfarlane's management. Although Macfarlane showed at the hearing that he had obtained an American patent for his alleged invention in his own name during the pending of the opposition, the law officer, believing that the suggestions had been originally made by Jones and Ingham, declined to grant the patent.

In the case of Abel's application, No. 1908, 1876, opposed by De Muller, August 2, 1876, Giffard, S. G., held that he could not take any official notice. of alleged fraudulent proceedings on the part of the foreign communicator of Abel's invention as against the opponent, which took place abroad. He could not look behind the applicant Abel, who, as the first importer or introducer of the invention into Her Majesty's realm, was in law the inventor.

Under the old system, an appeal from the law officer's decision would not be allowed unless a case of surprise or fraud could be made, or unless some material fact which, if brought before the law officer would have led him to decide differently, had come subsequently to the knowledge of the party appealing. (Re Vincent's Patent, L. R. 2 Ch. 341; Re Simpson's Patent, 21 L. T. o.s. 81; Ex parte Sheffield, L. R. 8 Ch. 237.) Nor would the opponent be allowed to raise on those facts before the Lord Chancellor a new argu

ment which he omitted to raise before the law officer. (Ex parte Sheffield, L. R. 8 Ch. 237.)

COSTS.

The Comptroller appears to have no authority to award costs; but the law officers have power, under the 38th sect. of the Act of 1883, to order costs to be paid by either party, and any such order may be made a rule of court. The law officers, however, have no settled rules as to costs, and appear disposed to limit. the allowance of costs as much as possible. It is to be hoped that in any future legislation power will be given to the Comptroller to deal with costs of oppositions. There seems to be no ground why applicants should have to bear their own costs of frivolous and unsuccessful oppositions.

180

CHAPTER IX.

THE PATENT: ITS DATE, DURATION, AND EXTENT.

By the twelfth section of the Patent Act of 1883 it is enacted that if there is no opposition to the grant of a patent, or in case of opposition if the determination is in favour of the grant, the Comptroller shall cause a patent to be sealed with the seal of the Patent Office, and a patent so sealed shall have the same effect as if it were sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. It is further directed that a patent shall be sealed as soon as may be, and not after the expiration of fifteen months from the date of application, except (1) where the sealing has been delayed by an appeal to the law officer, or by opposition to the grant, in which case the patent may be sealed at such time as the law officer may direct; and (2) if the applicant should die before the expiration of the fifteen months, in which case the patent may be granted to his legal representative, and sealed at any time within twelve months of the applicant's death.

By the thirteenth section of the same Act it is directed that every patent shall be dated and sealed as of the day of the application. The same section provides that in case of more than one application for a patent for the same invention, the sealing of a patent on one of those applications shall not prevent the sealing of a patent on an earlier application. This proviso was intended to apply to such cases as Ex parte Bates & Redgate (L. R. 3 Ch. 577) and Ex parte Manceaux

« PreviousContinue »