Page images
PDF
EPUB

DIGEST

OF THE

PATENT, TRADE MARK, AND OTHER

CASES

REPORTED IN

VOL. XVI. OF THE REPORTS OF PATENT, &c. CASES.

[blocks in formation]

1. Application for leave to apply to amend a Specification granted to Plaintiffs pending an action for infringement, the Plaintiffs undertaking not to threaten until the question of amendment was decided.-Patent.-Action for infringement.-Application for leave to apply to amend Specification.-Leave granted.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 19. Letters Patent having been granted to C. relating to improvements in safes, the owners of the Patent commenced an action for infringement, and subsequently moved that they might be at liberty to apply at the Patent Office for leave to amend their Specification by way of disclaimer. The Defendants opposed the application, urging that the proceedings were only at an early stage, and that it was a case in which leave should not under the circumstances be given.-BYRNE, J., granted the application on the usual terms as to costs, the Plaintiffs undertaking not to threaten until the question of the amendment of the Specification should be disposed of. CHATWOOD'S PATENT SAFE AND LOCK Co., LD., AND OTHERS v. RATNER SAFE Co., Ld., and OTHERS, p. 449.

ANTICIPATION. PAPER ANTICIPATION, LAW AS TO. See PNEUMATIC TYRE Co. v. LEICESTER PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., pp. 57, 542, 543.

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTICULARS OF BREACHES.

1. Certificate granted. LISTER & Co. v. DIX BROTHERS, p. 96.

2. Certificate granted. INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO. AND OTHERS V. BROGDEN, p. 184.

3. Certificate granted. KANE v. GUEST & Co., p. 433.

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS.

1. Certificate granted. LISTER & CO., LD. v. DIX BROTHERS, p. 96. 2. Certificate as to the Particulars gone into at the trial granted, except as to one Patent. BRITISH MOTOR SYNDICATE, LD. v. UNIVERSAL MOTOR CARRIAGE AND CYCLE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 114.

3. Certificate granted as to one Patent, so far as they related to matters as to which evidence was given, but refused as to another Patent. DEWRANCE v. FLETCHER BROTHERS, p. 153.

4. Certificate granted as to all Particulars that were gone into and mentioned. ADAMS v. STEVENS, p. 232.

5. Certificate granted by the Court of Appeal, except as to one Specification mentioned in one of the Objections. CASTNER-KELLNER ALKALI Co., LD. v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD., p. 276.

6. Certificate granted as to some of the Particulars. TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON HEATON, LD. v. THE TRENCH TUBELESS TYRE Co., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 314.

7. Certificate granted, but the application for such certificate having been made subsequently to the trial the costs of such application were not allowed. JAMES DUCKETT & SONS, LD. AND JAMES DUCKETT v. SANKEY & SON, p. 357.

8. Certificate granted. COOPER & CO., LD. v. BAEDEKER, p. 369.

9. Limited Certificate granted. DICK v. ELLAM'S DUPLICATOR CO., p. 424.

10. Certificate granted. KANE v. GUEST & Co., p. 443.

11. Certificate granted as to some of the Particulars. THE PALMER TYRE, LD. v. THE PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 496.

12. Certificate granted as to Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Particulars, but limited as to Nos. 3 and 4 to the Specifications mentioned at the trial. TAYLOR AND SCOTT v. ANNAND AND THE NORTHERN PRESS AND ENGINEERING CO., p. 560.

13. Certificate granted so far as concerned the Specifications referred to. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION Co., LD. v. THE IMPERIAL TRAMWAY Co., LD., AND THE BRITISH THOMSON-HOUSTON CO., LD., p. 631.

CERTIFICATE OF VALIDITY OF PATENT HAVING COME IN QUESTION.

1. Certificate having been granted in a previous action the judge in a subsequent case refused an application to deprive the successful Plaintiff of solicitor and client costs. FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUE DE THANN AND DE MULHOUSE v. LAFITTE & Co., p. 61. 2. Costs as between solicitor and client not refused where the validity of the patent was not disputed, but had been disputed in a previous action. THE WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LD. v. THE DAYLIGHT INCANDESCENT MANTLE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 344. 3. Certificate granted. JOHN VAREY, LD. v. WALKER, MITCHELL, & Co., p. 607.

COMPULSORY LICENCE.

Petition for. Reasonable offer by Patentees to supply Petitioners' want. Petition dismissed.-Patent.-Compulsory Licence.Application to Board of Trade.-Petitioners the owners of Patent for Improvement.-Agreements by Patentes restricting the number of Licences.-Leave to Licensees to oppose.-Jurisdiction of Board of Trade.-Amendment of Petition by adding Licensees as Respondents. -Offer without prejudice.-Offer by Licensees to supply.-Reasonableness of offer.-Meaning of "default."-Right of Petitioners to manufacture.-Manufacture to be within the Realm.-Profits how to be apportioned.-Refusal of offer by Petitioners.-Petition dismissed.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, sections 22, 46, and 87.-Patent Rules, 1890, 60 to 66. The D. Company were the owners of B.'s Patent relating to bicycle tyres or rims, subject to certain licences. An American Company were the owners of another Patent relating to bicycle wheels, namely, for a combination consisting of a special form of wooden rim and special form of tyre to fit it, and they presented a Petition to the Board of Trade for the grant to them of a compulsory licence under B.'s Patent on the grounds that (1) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the invention could not be supplied, and (2) that the Petitioners were prevented from working or using to the best advantage their own invention. It appeared that B.'s Patent had been owned, subject to a licence, by the N. B. Company, who had assigned it to the D. Company in consideration of a sum of money and the grant of a licence to the N. B. Company, and an agreement by the D. Company only to grant one further licence. Such licence had been granted to the C. Company. The existence of such licences was one of the grounds of the refusal of the D. Company, previously to the presentation of the Petition, to grant a licence to the Petitioners. The N. B. Company and the C. Company applied to the Board of Trade for and obtained leave to appear and oppose the Petition. The Licensees, in their affidavits, expressed their willingness to supply the Petitioners with tyres of the special form covered by the Petitioners' Patent. At the hearing the D. Company and the Licensees objected to the Petition being amended by making the Licensees Respondents, but the Petition was subsequently ordered to be amended by adding the N. B. Company and any other person interested in the Patent. It was contended by the Respondents that the existence of an exclusive licence precluded any jurisdiction in the Board of Trade to order the grant of a compulsory licence;

COMPULSORY LICENCE-continued.

they also objected that the Petitioners did not carry on their
manufacture in England. The N. B. Company in their declaration
stated that they were prepared to supply the Petitioners, and in
the course of the hearing they made an offer to the Petitioners to
supply them with tyres of their special form on certain terms, and
evidence was heard as to the reasonableness of such offer. Such
offer was at first made "without prejudice," but the Referee
refusing to receive it in that form these words were withdrawn.
It was contended, for the Petitioners, that it was sufficient for
them to show a default in granting a licence before the presenta-
tion of the Petition. During the hearing the Referee intimated
that he proposed to report to the Board of Trade on the following
points: (1) That the Patentee, in section 22 of the Patents, &c.
Act, 1883, means the person or persons for the time being entitled
to the benefit of the Patent; that if such person or persons were
before the Board of Trade it had jurisdiction, but the respective
rights of the persons entitled might affect the discretion of the
Board of Trade; and further it was not necessary that there should
be default on the part of each of such persons. (2) That the Board
of Trade has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of a Petition by
adding the names of persons appearing, after the presentation of
the Petition, to be interested in the Patent. (3) That in a case in
which the Petitioners' invention was an improved variety of a
species covered by the Respondents' Patent, the Board of Trade
ought not to order the grant of a licence if the Respondents make a
reasonable offer to manufacture such improved variety. (4) That
the offer by the N. B. Company was a reasonable one. The Referee
proposed to make an interim Report and to adjourn the Petition.
The Petitioners refused the offer made by the N. B. Company. The
Referee thereupon made a final Report, and the Petition was dis-
missed. The Board of Trade has no jurisdiction over the costs of a
Petition for a compulsory licence. IN THE MATTER OF BARTLETT'S
PATENT (No. 16,783 of 1890), and IN THE MATTER OF THE
PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1883, and IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE GORMULLY AND JEFFERY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR A COMPULSORY LICENCE, p. 641.

COSTS. See also INFRINGEMENT, Nos. 1 and 16.

1. The costs of the shorthand writer's notes allowed to a successful Appellant by the Court of Appeal, in a case where the notes were referred to day by day in the Court below.-CASTNERKELLNER ALKALI CO., LD., v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD., p. 251.

2. Successful Appellant's solicitor will not be compelled to give his personal undertaking to repay the costs in the event of a further appeal without some special reason.-CASTNERKELLNER ALKALI CO., LD., v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LD., p. 276.

3. Where on amendment of Particulars of Objections the Plaintiff is given an election to discontinue.-Action for infringement of Patent.-Leave obtained to amend Particulars of Objections.-Leave

1

COSTS-continued.

to re-amend Particulars of Objections.-Terms of Order. In an action for an infringement of a Patent the Defendants, on the 28th of July 1898, delivered Particulars of Objections with their Defence. On the 23rd of January 1899, they obtained an Order to amend their Particulars, the costs of the amendment to be the Plaintiffs' in any event; the Plaintiffs to have six weeks to elect to discontinue; if they discontinued the Defendants were to be at liberty to tax their costs up to and including the 28th of July 1898, and the Plaintiffs were to be at liberty to tax their costs subsequently to that date. On the 30th of January 1899, the Defendants delivered their amended Particulars, and on the 12th of April 1899, the Plaintiffs delivered their reply with notice of trial. On the 9th of May 1899, the Defendants obtained an Order from the Master to re-amend their Particulars of Objections on terms similar to those of the previous Order, except that in the event of discontinuance the Defendants were to be at liberty to tax their costs up to the 30th of January 1899, and the Plaintiffs to tax their costs subsequently to that date. This Order having been confirmed by the Judge in Chambers, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the ground that they ought to have their costs subsequent to the 28th of July 1898, instead of only subsequent to the 30th of January 1899.-Held, that the Order appealed from was right, and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Ehrlich v. Ihlee, 4 R.P.C. 115, distinguished. Woolley v. Broad, 9 R.P.C. 429, followed. HERBERT WILLIAM WILSON AND WILSON BROTHERS BOBBIN CO., LD. v. WILSON & Co. (BARNSLEY), LD., p. 315.

4. A Plaintiff holding a certificate of validity will not be deprived of solicitor and client costs without a sufficient special reason. THE WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO. LD. . THE DAYLIGHT INCANDESCENT MANTLE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 344.

5. Successful Defendant who did not apply for a certificate as to Particulars of Objections at the trial, but applied subsequently, not allowed the costs of such application. JAMES DUCKETT & SON, LD., AND JAMES DUCKETT v. SANKEY & SON, p. 357.

6. Costs allowed of three Counsel and the shorthand notes. PALMER TYRE, LD. v. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 496.

7. Successful Plaintiff not deprived of solicitor and client costs where the Defendant in the action in which the certificate of validity was given did not fight. BRITISH MOTOR SYNDICATE, LD., AND OTHERS . J. E. H. ANDREWS & Co., LD., p. 594.

8. An unsuccessful Plaintiff, who had appealed, applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution in respect of costs unless the Defendants' solicitors would give a personal undertaking to return the costs in the event of the appeal succeeding.-Held, that the application failed, as no special circumstances were proved. JOHN VAREY, LD. v. WALKER, MITCHELL & Co., p. 607.

DAMAGES, INQUIRY AS TO.

Inquiry granted in a threats action where the Plaintiffs had lost a contract owing to threats. HOFFNUNG v. SALSBURY, p. 375.

« PreviousContinue »