Page images
PDF
EPUB

thereby, if the alleged manufacture, use, sale, or purchase to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats. But this section is not to apply if the person making such threats with due diligence commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of his patent.

Previously to the passing of this Act it had been held that it was necessary to show a want of good faith as well as the untruth of his assertions to render a patentee liable for threatening proceedings (Halsey v. Brotherhood, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 514; Burnett v. Tate, Q. B. April 27, 1883; La Société Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v. Tilghman's Patent Sand Blast Co., 25 Ch. D. 1); but now the patentee's bona fides is by the operation of the Act no longer a good defence. Since the Act the following cases have been decided upon the construction of this section:--Barnett and Foster v. Barrett's Screw Stopper Bottling Company, Limited (1 R. P. C. 9); Sugg and Sugg and Company Limited v. George Bray and Co. (1 R. P. C. 45); Jackson v. Wulstenhulmes, Rye and Co. Limited (1 R. P. C. 106).

SCOTLAND.

The 107th section of the Patent Act of 1883 directs that in any action for infringement of a patent in Scotland the provisions of the Act, with respect to calling in the aid of an assessor, shall apply, and the action shall be tried without a jury, unless the Court shall otherwise direct; but otherwise nothing shall affect the jurisdiction and forms of process of the courts in Scotland in such an action, or in any action or proceeding respecting a patent hitherto competent to those courts. For the purposes of this section Court of Appeal' is to mean any court to which such action is appealed.

And by the 111th section the provisions of the Act conferring a special jurisdiction on the Court as defined by the Act shall not, except so far as the jurisdiction extends, affect the jurisdiction of any court in Scotland. in any proceedings relating to patents; and with reference to any such proceedings in Scotland the termn' the Court' shall mean any Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session, and the term Court of Appeal' shall mean either division of the said Court.

The Court of Appeal has held in the case of Speckhart v. Campbell reported in the Times,' March 13, 1884, that where infringements have been committed both in England and Scotland by a defendant domiciled in Scotland, the Court, in deciding in which country proceedings should be taken, will be guided by the particular circumstances of the case and the convenience of the parties.

IRELAND.

By section 110 of the new Act all parties shall, notwithstanding anything in the Act, have in Ireland their remedies under or in respect of a patent as if the same had been granted to extend to Ireland only. And by the 111th section the jurisdiction of any court in Ireland in proceedings relating to patents is not to be affected by the provisions of the Act conferring a special jurisdiction on the Court as defined by the Act, except so far as the latter jurisdiction extends; and with reference to any such proceedings in Ireland, the terms 'the Court' and the Court of Appeal' respectively are to mean the High Court of Justice in Ireland and Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland.

ISLE OF MAN.

By the 112th section of the new Act it is enacted

that it shall extend to the Isle of Man, but that nothing therein shall affect the jurisdiction of the courts in the Isle of Man in proceedings for infringement, or in any action or proceeding respecting a patent competent to those courts.

COSTS.'

The successful plaintiff is entitled to his costs, unless his conduct has been such as to induce the judge to deprive him of them (Nunn v. Albuquerque, 31 Bea. 595).

The plaintiff will not be deprived of costs because he did not apply to the defendant before taking proceedings (Burgess v. Hateley, 26 Bea. 249; Upmann v. Forrester, 24 Ch. D. 231), nor because the defendant was unacquainted with the plaintiff's rights, nor because he had no intention to do wrong (Burgess v. Hills, 26 Bea. 244; Cooper v. Whittingham, 24 Ch. D. 231).

It is directed by the sixth sub-section of the twentyninth section of the Patent Act of 1883, that on the taxation of costs, regard shall be had to the particulars delivered by the plaintiff and by the defendant, and they respectively shall not be allowed any costs in respect of any particulars delivered by them unless the same is certified by the Court or a judge to have been proven, or to have been rcasonable and proper, without regard to the general costs of the case.

By the thirty-first section of the Patent Act of 1883 it is enacted that, in an action for infringement of a patent, the Court or a judge may certify that the validity of the patent came in question; and if the Court or a judge so certifies, then in any subsequent action for infringement, the plaintiff in that action, on obtaining a final order or judgment in his favour, shall have his full costs, charges, and expenses as between solicitor and

See the cases as to costs collected in Mr. W. N. Lawson's cited work, pp. 81-87.

client, unless the Court or judge trying the action certifies that he ought not to have the same.

Under the corresponding section in the Patent Act of 1852 this certificate was given in suits in the Court of Chancery as well as in actions at common law (Needham v. Oxley, 8 L. T. N. s. 604; Davenport v. Rylands, 1 Law Rep. Eq. 308). In the latter case, Wood, V. C., decided that a patentee who has obtained this certificate may have his full costs in any subsequent action for infringement, although the validity of the patent may not have been in question in such action. In Penn v. Bibby (L. R. 3 Eq. 309) it was held that the section does not apply to the costs of the first trial.

As to what is a sufficient certificate to enable the Court to direct the costs to be taxed as above mentioned see Betts v. De Vitre (11 Jur. N. s. 11), Bovill v. Hadley (17 C. B. N. s. 435).

Other cases relating to the certificate are Stocker v. Rodgers (1 C. & R. 99); Ball v. Lelm (Times,' April 14, 1881).

When directors of a limited company are active parties in an infringement of a patent by the company, they may be made parties to a suit against the company, and may be ordered personally to pay the costs of suit (Betts v. De Vitre, 11 Jur. N. s. 9, affirmed on appeal, L. R. 3 Ch. 429).

See further as to the taxation of costs in patent suits, Smith v. Buller (L. R. 19 Eq. 473); Batley v. Kynock (L. R. 20 Eq. 632); Wegmann v. Corcoran (27 W. N. 357).

300

CHAPTER XV.

REVOCATIONS.

THE old action of scire facias, which was one brought in the name of the Crown for the purpose of repealing a grant of letters patent, has been abolished, so far as patents for inventions are concerned, by the twentysixth section of the Patent Act of 1883. By that section it is enacted that the revocation of a patent may be obtained on petition to the Court, and that every ground on which a patent might, at the commencement of the Act, be repealed by scire facias shall be available by way of defence to an action of infringement, and shall also be a ground of revocation.

A petition for the revocation of a patent may be presented by (a) the Attorney General in England or Ireland, or by the Lord Advocate in Scotland; (b) any person authorised by these law officers; (c) any person alleging that the patent was obtained in fraud of his rights, or of the rights of any person under or through whom he claims; (d) any person alleging that he, or any person under or through whom he claims, was the true inventor of any invention included in the patentee's claim; (e) any person alleging that he, or any person under or through whom he claims an interest in any trade, business, or manufacture, had publicly manufactured, used, or sold within this realm before the date of the patent anything claimed by the patentee as his invention. That is to say, the persons who, in addition to

« PreviousContinue »