Page images
PDF
EPUB

INFRINGEMENT.

66

1. A Patent for improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of wheels for cycles or other light vehicles held not to have been infringed, but a Patent for improvements in tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles held to be infringed. Action for infringement of two Patents.-Validity.-Infringement.-Plaintiffs partly successful.-Costs.-Appeals by Plaintiffs and Defendants. Appeals dismissed.-Form of Injunction. In 1890, a Patent was granted to W. for "Improvements in "rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of wheels for cycle or other light vehicles." In the same year a Patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles." In 1897, the D. P. T. Company, in whom both the Patents had become vested, commenced an action against the N. I. T. Company for infringement of both Patents. The Defendants denied infringement and also the validity of both Patents. Before the trial, B.'s Patent had been upheld and construed by the House of Lords (The North British Rubber Company, Ld. v. The Gormully and Jeffery Manufacturing Company, 15 R.P.C. 245), by whom it was held that the first claim was for the method described in the Specification and any method substantially the same of connecting the outer cover of a tyre with the rim so that the ends of the cover are gripped. W.'s Patent had before the trial been upheld and construed in several actions, and in one of them (The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. The East London Rubber Company, 14 R.P.C. 573) by the Court of Appeal, by whom it was held that the feature of the invention consisted in an arrangement in which an arched tyre was stretched over a convex surface and held in position by wires in its edges without any other support or fastening. Two tyres were complained of by the Plaintiffs as infringements, both of them being alleged to infringe B.'s Patent, and one of them only being alleged at the trial to infringe W.'s Patent. In each there was a rubber tyre with metal bands in pockets at the edges of it; these bands overlapped longitudinally, but the ends were not fastened together. The rim in each case was nearly flat at the bottom, and the bands when lying side by side in the rim met or slightly overlapped. In the alleged infringement of both Patents (J.H.2) the edges of the rim were turned outwards to some extent, but in the other alleged infringement (J.H.1) the edges were somewhat inturned, and in the latter case the pockets were looser than in the former case. The position and action of the bands when the tyres were inflated were in controversy.-Held, by KEKEWICH, J., that the questions as to the validity of the Patents were concluded as regards that Court by the judgments in the previous actions on the Patents, that J.H.1 was an infringement of B.'s Patent, but that J.H., was not an infringement of either of the Patents. A special order was made as to costs, and the costs so far as referring to the validity of either Patent were directed to be taxed as between solicitor and client. The Plaintiffs appealed against the decision so far as the same related to J.H.2, and also as regards the form of the injunction in respect of J.H.1, which restrained the Defendants from infringing B.'s Patent by making tyres like J.H.1, but not generally from infringing the Patent. The Defendants appealed from the decision that J.H.1 was an infringement of B.'s Patent, and also from the decision in favour of the validity of W.'s Patent, and contended, at the hearing, that it was invalid on the ground of disconformity, inasmuch as Fig. 20 in the Complete

INFRINGEMENT-continued.

Specification was not within the Provisional Specification.-Held (approving the decision of WILLS, J., in The Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ld. v. The Ixion Patent Pneumatic Tyre Co., 14 R.P.C. 853), that W.'s Patent was not invalid on the ground alleged by the Defendants, and that the decisions of KEKEWICH, J., as to infringement were correct. All three appeals were dismissed with costs, such costs to be set off. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD., AND OTHERS . THE NEW IXION TYRE AND CYCLE CO., LD., p. 16.

2. A Patent for improved means of altering and adjusting the position of cycle saddles held not to have been infringed. Action for infringement.-Subject-matter.-Defendants held not to have infringed. This was an action for the infringement of four Patents (one not being relied on at the trial) :-The first for improvements relating to the base frame of cycle saddles; the second for improvements in the boss on the pillar of the cycle; the third for improved means of adjusting the tilt of the saddle. The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged that the Patents were invalid on various grounds; No. 1, on the grounds of want of novelty and subject-matter, anticipation, want of utility and insufficiency; No. 2, on the grounds of want of novelty and subjectmatter, insufficiency, variance, and anticipation; and No. 3, on the grounds of anticipation, want of subject-matter, variance, and prior grant. It was held, at the trial, that all the Patents were valid, and had been infringed, the first Patent being the application of an old principle in a way which involved the exercise of ingenuity; as to the second Patent, that the alleged variance from the Provisional was only such a change as might fairly follow on further consideration by an inventive mind of the method of the Provisional; as to No. 3 Patent, that the Specification alleged as a prior grant was itself invalid on the ground of variance. Judgment was given for the Plaintiff, with costs, except so far as the same had been increased by the inclusion of the abandoned Patent, and the order certified that the alleged prior grant was invalid. The Defendants appealed.Held, on appeal, that the first Patent was valid, since the words at the end of the first claim, "substantially as described and set forth," limited the claim for use in base frames of a trussed beam to the particular manner described in the Specification, and, further, that this Patent had been infringed; that, as to the second Patent, Figures 8, 9, and 10 were not within the Provisional Specification, and, further, the Defendants had not infringed this Patent; and that as to the third Patent, without deciding the question of validity, the Defendants had not infringed it. The appeal, as regards the first Patent, was dismissed with costs; but, as regards the second and third Patents, it was allowed with costs, the costs to be taxed as if there were separate actions. A certificate was given that the Particulars of Objections to the second and third Patents were reasonable and proper. The Plaintiff appealed to the HOUSE OF LORDS from so much of the decision of the Court of Appeal as applied to the third Patent.-Held, by the HOUSE OF LORDS, that the Defendants had not infringed the third Patent. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, p. 41.

3. "There is no infringement of the Patent, and it would be a very serious thing to my mind, if, when you are dealing as you are here with

66

IN FRINGEMENT-continued.

66

66

mere combinations of old materials, when there is a real and sub"stantial difference between the mechanical contrivances, the first person who contrives one is to exclude all the rest of the world "from making another and a different kind of contrivance, although "the object of both may be to attain the same end. Per HALSBURY, L.C. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, p. 49.

4. A Patent for producing a substitute for musk held to have been infringed.-Action for infringement.-Validity not contested.— Infringement found.-Validity in issue in previous action.-Certificate granted.-Solicitor and client costs. The owners of a Patent for artificial musk brought an action for infringement thereof against C. and obtained a certificate that the validity of the Patent came in issue. They then brought an action for infringement against L. and Co., who did not contest the validity of the Patent, but contended that upon a true construction of the Specification they had not infringed.-Held, that the Defendants had infringed, and the Judge refused to grant a certificate depriving the Plaintiffs of solicitor and client costs. FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN AND DE MULHOUSE v. LAFITTE & CO. AND OTHERS, p. 61.

The

5. Action for infringement of a Patent for pneumatic tyres. Infringement not found.-Action for infringement of three Patents. One only relied on at the trial.-Validity not contested.Infringement not found.-Judgment for Defendants, with costs, and certificate that the Particulars of Objections to the two abandoned Patents were reasonable and proper.-Appeals dismissed. P. Company brought an action against the T. Company for inf ingement of three Patents for improvements in pneumatic tyres, one being a Patent by B. for a tyre held to consist (inter alia) of an inner inflatable tube. At the trial the question resolved itself into one of infringement of this Patent, the case as to the other two Patents being abandoned by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants had no inner inflatable tube, but the Plaintiffs contended that part of the Defendants' construction was equivalent to an inner inflatable tube.-Held, at the trial, that the Defendants had not infringed, and judgment was given for them with costs. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal.-Held, by the MASTER OF THE ROLLS and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J., that the inner inflatable tube was of the essence of B.'s invention, and that the Defendants had not infringed, but it was held by RIGBY, L.J., that the Defendants had taken the combination described in B.'s first claim, and therefore had infringed, The appeal was dismissed, with costs. The Plaintiff's appealed to the House of Lords.-Held, by the House of Lords, that the Defendants had not infringed. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. THE TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON HEATON, LD., AND OTHERS, p. 77.

6. Infringement of one of three Patents found. No injunction granted as the Patent had expired, but an inquiry as to damages granted.-Action for infringement of four Patents.-Action successful as to one Patent only. In 1884 Letters Patent were granted, on a communication from abroad by D., for Improvements in gas or oil motors." The invention' related to the class of engines in which an explosion takes place on every alternate

66

с

INFRINGEMENT-continued.

66

66

66

66

66

[ocr errors]

stroke. The Specification, after describing how, in working, the heat of the sides of the combustion chamber, combined with the compression of the combustible mixtures, would of themselves bring about ignition at the right moment, contained the following passage: "That the mixture may also explode at the beginning of the working "when the sides of the space are quite cold, a metallic priming capf, "the interior of which is in continuous open communication with "the space of combustion, is by means of a flame from without so "heated that ignition takes place from the heated sides of the priming cap." The Patentee claimed, “1st. In gas motors in which only one impulse is given for each two strokes of the working piston, "the effecting of the automatic ignition of the combustible mixture "at each second stroke by the compression against the hot sides of "the combustion chamber by means of the movement of the crank "of the working piston, and the regulation of the ignition at the "exact moment in relation to the dead point by the cocks which "admits more or less combustible mixture for the explosion charge, "or by the cock t which regulates the heat of the igniting cap f, "substantially as herein before described and illustrated in the "drawings. 2nd. The use of the priming cap ƒ for effecting the "ignition when the sides of the chamber are quite cold, substantially "as herein before described and illustrated in the drawings." In 1885 Letters Patent were granted to D. for "Improvements in motor engines worked by combustible gases or petroleum vapour or spray." This Patent related to the same type of engines. Claim 9 was as follows:-"The method of regulating the speed of a gas or petroleum motor engine by causing the discharge valves for the products of combustion to remain closed when the normal speed is "exceeded, so that the products of combustion are retained under pressure in the cylinder, whereby the admission valves b and c for "combustible mixture are also kept closed and no fresh charge is consequently admitted, either above the piston or from the pump below, until the speed is again reduced and the discharge valve opened substantially as herein described." In 1885 another Patent was grantel to D. for an "Improved vehicle propelled by a gas or "petroleum motor engine." The first claim was for "The combina"tion of a vehicle having a driving and a steering wheel running on "one and the same track, with a centrally arranged gas or petroleum "motor engine and its reservoir, the centre of gravity of which lies "in the vertical plane of the wheel-track, substantially as herein "described." In 1896 the registered owners of the three Patents brought an action against a Company for infringement of the same, as well as of a fourth Patent, as to which the claim for infringement was dropped at the trial. The main points on which the Defendants relied at the trial were, as to the first Patent, that there was insufficiency of description, inasmuch as an engine constructed according to the description would not work, that the inventor contemplated, for starting the engine, the use of a heated surface, the shape being immaterial, in continuous communication with the cylinder, whereas the ignition tubes used by them which were much longer in proportion to their diameter than f, operated by the spent gas in the tube being compressed and so unmasking the heated portion of the tube at the right moment, that the Patent was anticipated and that the Patentee contemplated the use of ƒ only for starting the machine. As to the second Patent that the Patentee was not the first to effect the inlet valve through the action of the exhaust

66

66

66

64

[merged small][ocr errors]

valve, and that they did not infringe, they operating by locking the exhaust valve open. As to the third Patent, that if construed broadly, there was no subject-matter and, if otherwise construed, no infringement.-Held, by STIRLING, J., that the first Patent was valid and that the Defendants had infringed it, but that the Defendants had not infringed either the second or third Patents, the claim of the second Patent only claiming the particular device, and that, unless the first claim of the third Patent was limited to the combination substantially as describe 1, there would not be subject-matter for a Patent. The first Patent having expired, no injunction was granted but an inquiry as to damages, the costs to follow the event in the case of each Patent with a set-off. A certificate of validity was granted as to the first Patent ut refused as to the second. A certificate as to the Particulars of Objections gone into at the trial with respect to the Patents except the first Patent, was granted. BRITISH MOTOR SYNDICATE, LD. v. UNIVERSAL MOTOR CARRIAGE AND CYCLE Co., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 113.

7. A Patent for an improvement in water closets held not to have been infringed, the Defendants not having taken a a pipe which was the essence of the Plaintiff's invention.Action for infringement. - Construction of Specification.Anticipation.-Action dismissed.-Appeal dismissed. In 1893, Letters Patent were granted to A. for "An improvement in water "closets or water closet basins," and in 1897 A. commenced an action against P. and others. The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged anticipation (inter alia) by the Specification of F.'s patent of 1886.-Held, at the trial, that the essential part of the Plaintiff's invention was an inclined pipe which the alleged infringement did not possess, and that therefore the Defendants had not infringed. The learned Judge also intimated that A.'s patent was anticipated by F.'s Specification. The Plaintiff appealed.-Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the inclined pipe was of the essence of the invention, and that therefore the Defendants had not infringed. On the question of anticipation, the Court intimated that in their opinion A.'s patent was not anticipated by F.'s Specification of 1886. ALLEN v. ABRAHAM PYATT & CO. AND ANOTHER, p. 135.

8. A Patent for improvements in flats and fasteners held not to have been infringed.-Action for infringement.--No infringement. The Patentee of an invention for improvements in flats and in fasteners for securing the card clothing thereon and thereto sued the Defendant for infringement. The Defendant denied infringement and pleaded that the matter in controversy was res judicata, also that, although admitting that the Plaintiffs' patent was valid, the claims were restricted to fasteners which stretch the foundation in the manner described in his Specification. In 1889 the Plaintiffs had brought an action against the present Defendant on this same patent in which the House of Lords had held that the Defendant had not infringed. Subsequently the Defendants varied the form of their fastener and the Plaintiffs brought the present action.-Held, at the trial, that on the construction placed on the Specification by the House of Lords, the Defendants had not infringed. The Plaintiff's appealed. The appeal was dismissed with costs. TWEEDALE v. Ashworth, pp. 142, 521.

« PreviousContinue »