INFRINGEMENT-continued, 9. The Plaintiffs, who were owners of two Patents for the manufacture of mantles for incandescent gas lighting, brought an action for infringement. The Defendant admitted the validity of the Patent, and at the trial that what were complained of were infringements, but denied selling them. He had not executed the order, but had forwarded it to S. who had executed it. The Defendant received a commission from S. on all orders which he forwarded.-Held, that the Defendant had infringed. THE INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO. AND OTHERS v. BROGDEN, p. 179. 10. Simple repairs to a patented article may be carried out by a person without licence from the owner of the Patent; but not repairs which amount practically to a re-making of the patented article. - Action for infringement. - Interlocutory motion.-Repairs or manufacture. - Customer alleged to be Plaintiffs' agent. - Injunction granted. The Specification of a Patent claimed (inter alia) a rubber or elastic tyre having the form of a saddle or arch in section lined with canvas, in combination with two wires or sufficiently inelastic cores for securing the same to the rims or tyres, substantially as therein described. A tyre manufactured by the owners of the Patent, being worn, was taken to N., who substituted for the old canvas and rubber new canvas and rubber, but used the old wires. The owners of the Patent, which had been established, brought an action against N. for infringement, and moved for an interlocutory injunction. It was contended for the Defendant that he had only executed fair repairs, and also that the customer was the agent of the Plaintiffs in ordering the work to be executed.-Held, that the customer was only the agent of the Plaintiffs to the extent of being deputed to ascertain what course the Defendant would take; that the Patent had been infringed; and the inference being that the Defendant would in the course of his trade do the same thing in future under similar circumstances, if not restrained, the Plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction until the trial. Kelly v. Batchelar, 10 R.P.C. 289, distinguished. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND ANOTHER v. NEAL, p. 247. 11. An agent of the Plaintiffs held not to have authority to direct an article to be made so as to prevent its being an infringement. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND ANOTHER v. NEAL, p. 247. 12. Where a patent had been held to be bad on account of disconformity and want of utility the Court refused to give judgment on the issue of infringement. TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON HEATON, LD. v. THE TRENCH TUBELESS TYRE Co., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 314. 13. A patent for the manufacture of an illuminant appliance for gas and other burners held to have been infringed. Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.-Infringement.-Judgment for Plaintiffs.-Costs as between solicitor and client.-D fendant irregularly served. In 1885 a Patent was granted to W. for the manufacture of an illuminant appliance for gas and other burners. For this purpose he stated in his Specification that he employed a compound of oxide of lanthanum and zirconium, or of these with oxide of yttrium, that he found the INFRINGEMENT-continued. following proportions very suitable, 60 per cent. oxide of zirconium, 20 per cent. oxide of lanthanum, and 20 per cent. oxide of yttrium, that the oxide of yttrium might be dispensed with, the composition then being 50 per cent. oxide of zirconium and 50 per cent. of lanthanum, that instead of using oxide of yttrium, ytterite, and instead of oxide of lanthanum, cerite earth, containing no didymium, and but little cerium, might be employed. The process described consisted of impregnating a fabric with a solution of nitrates or acetates of the oxides, and after exposing it to ammonia gas burning off the fabric, leaving the earthy matters in the form of a skeleton cap or hood. The Patentee also stated that the fabric could be painted with or dipped into a concentrated solution of the salts so as to provide a fresh layer of the metallic salts. He claimed "the "manufacture substantially as herein described, of an illuminant appliance for gas and other burners, consisting of a cap or hood "made of fabric impregnated with the substances mentioned and "treated as set forth." The owners of this Patent brought an action for infringement of the sa ne against a Company, who were manufacturing mintles, which consisted substantially of zirconia with a half per cent. of cerium, the mantle of zirconia being made by W.'s process, and being painted with a collodion solution of cerium. The Defendants denied infringement and alleged that, if the Patent covered what they did, it was bad for insufficiency and want of utility. Cerite earth, mentioned in the Specification, was proved to be the principal source of lanthanum, and to consist substantially of cerium, lanthanum, and didymium.-Held, that the Defendants had infringed the Patent. Jadgment was given for the Plaintiffs with costs, and (a certificate of validity having previously been granted) no order was made depriving the Plaintiffs of costs as between solicitor and client. One of the Defendants was Secretary of the Defendant Company. He delivered no defence, but adopted that of the Company at the trial and appeared by the same counsel and solicitors.-Held, that an injunction ought to be awarded against him with costs, but under the circumstances no inquiry as to damage. THE WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LD. v. THE DAYLIGHT INCANDESCENT MANTLE Co., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 344. 14. The Secretary of an infringing company who adopted the Company's defence held liable to have an injunction and costs but not an inquiry as to damages awarded against him. THE WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LD. v. THE DAYLIGHT INCANDESCENT MANTLE CO., LD., AND OTHERS, p. 356. 15. A Patent for improvements in stoppers for jars, &c., held not to have been infringed, the essential feature of the Plaintiff's invention not having been taken by the Defendants. -Action for infringement.-Validity.-Infringement.―Judgment for Plaintiffs at trial.-Appeal.-Appeal allow d. Letters Patent having been granted in 1895 for "Improvements in stoppers for "jars and other like receptacles," the Patentees brought an action. for infringement of the same. The Defendant. denied infringement, and alleged that the Patent was anticipated by a Patent of 1865 granted to T. The stopper patented by the Plaintiffs belonged to the class in which the upper and lower parts can be approximated, INFRINGEMENT-continued. thus compressing elastic material placed between them causing it to extend laterally, and when the stopper is in place to make an airtight joint. In the Plaintiffs' stopper the pressure was applied through the intervention of a pressure plate, which did not exist in T.'s stopper or in the alleged infringement.-Held, at the trial, that the Patent was valid and had been infringed. The Defendants appealed.-Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the appeal must be allowed and judgment must be entered for the Defendants, since unless the essential feature of the Plaintiffs' Patent was the introduction of the pressure plate, it was anticipated by T.'s Patent, and, if the essential feature was the introduction of such plate, the Defendants did not infringe. GRIFFITHS v. THE BIRMINGHAM STOPPER AND CYCLE COMPONENTS Co., p. 383. 16. Where infringement was admitted after the Plaintiff had called two witnesses, the Defendant was given any additional costs incurred by reason of infringement having been originally denied. KANE v. GUEST & CO., p. 443. 66 66 66 17. Action for infringement of three Patents for inventions connected with wheels and tyres for wheels. One Patent held not to be infringed, the two others held not to be infringed, and also invalid.-Action for infringement of three Patents. Construction. - Anticipation. - Infringement. - Action dismissed.-One Patent held invalid. The owners of three Patents— Thomas's, Trigwell's, and Palmer's-brought an action for infringement of the same. The Complete (Amended) Specification of Thomas's Patent, which was for "Improvements in tires and fellies "for the wheels of vehicles" contained the following paragraphs :— My invention consists of a tire made of a sheet of flexible material "impervious to liquids or fluids, and such as may be caused to assume a cylindrical form in its engagement with an angular felly provided with grooves, slits, recesses or sunken channels in "the said walls or edges thereof, and caused to maintain said form "after inflation My invention consists also of a flexible "or elastic tire capable of inflation by means of air, gas, water or "other liquid or fluid and the tire provided with two or more ribs "or projections for engagement with an improved felly made in one or more parts, and adapted to receive and firmly hold the same in position in the outer face thereof by means of cement or other glutinous or adhesive material or substances." After descriptions of the drawings the Patentee stated that he made "no claim to any "method of constructing tires other than such in which the tire or "tire cover is made with longitudinal ribs or has enlarged edges "which pass into and are held within grooves or their equivalents "formed in the rim of the wheel, but subject thereto" he claimed (5) An inflatable tire compound of flexible material, having the "sides enlarged in combination with a felly having grooves or "channels in the sides or edges thereof to receive the enlarge"ments of the tire and a tube with a cock secured into "said felly, substantially as and for the purposes set forth." Trigwell stated in his Complete (Amended) Specification that his invention related to an improved rim and tire for the wheels of velocipedes and other road vehicles; that the crosssection of the rim which he preferred to use resembled a letter 66 66 66 66 INFRINGEMENT-continued. Y, and continued as follows:-"The small flanges on the upper "vulcanised together. Instead of vulcanising them together they 66 66 aware that fabrics have been made of various materials in con"junction with parallel or various plies of parallel threads for the "purpose of thickening and strengthening the same, and for the purpose of resisting longitudinal strains and stretching as in driving belts and hose pipes and also in different makes of paper, and I would have it understood that I make no general claim to fabric so' constructed." The claims were (1) "a fabric "made of two or more plies of rubber, each having embedded "therein parallel fibrous threads, the threads in one ply presenting "an angle to the threads in the other, no two threads being in contact, substantially as described and subject to the dis"claiming note; (2) a fabric made of two or more plies "of rubber, each ply having embedded and vulcanised therein "substantially non extensible parallel fibrous threads out of contact with each other, the threads in adjacent plies presenting an angle "to each other, substantially as described and subject to the above INFRINGEMENT-continued. "disclaiming note." The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged the invalidity of the Patents on the grounds of (inter alia)-as to Thomas, insufficiency; as to Trigwell, prior grant to Welch; and as to Palmer, anticipation by (inter alia) prior user by M. & Co. The Plaintiffs alleged that Welch's Patent was invalid on various grounds, including disconformity and anticipation, but admitted in argument that the decision on these points in The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. The East London Rubber Company, 14 R.P.C. 573, was binding on them at the trial. The alleged infringement was the manufacture and sale of a Welch-Dunlop tyre and rim, the tyre having an inner tube, an outer arch-shape cover with wires in its edges of less diameter than the edges of the rim within which the wires were placed. The Plaintiffs conten led that a wide interpretation should be given to Thomas's Patent, he being the first to have, instead of a complete tube, a tyre or tyre cover in the form of a sheet of flexible material engaging with the edges of the rim so as to form with it a complete tube. They alleged that the Defendants' cover had enlarged edges, and that the rim had grooves in it corresponding to Thomas's enlargements and grooves respectively, and that the Defendants had substantially Trigwell's U-shaped channels omitting the inner side of them, also that the Defendants had taken the substance of Trigwell's invention viz. the wiring on; they set up that Palmer's Patent was in substance for the application of the fabric to pneumatic tyres and the like for the purpose of avoiding sawing action. The prior user set up by the Defendants of Palmer's invention consisted of the production of a fabric at a certain stage in the manufacture of a solid tyre, the fabric being afterwards rolled up to form such tyre.Held, by WILLS, J. (1) as to Thomas's Patent, that its claims were limited to methods of construction in which the tyre had longitudinal ribs or enlarged edges passing into and held within grooves or their equivalents, and that the Defendants' tyre had no ribs or any enlargements that performed the function of Thomas's enlargements, nor had the Defendants rim any grooves equivalent to Thomas's grooves, and that the Defendants had not infringed this Patent; (2) as to Trigwell's Patent, that it was a narrow Patent for the particular combination, and on that construction the Defendants had not infringed; but that, no new evidence having been given to materially alter the case as to the validity of the Welch Patent, which Patent was prior in date to Trigwell, the question of infringe. ment did not arise; (3) as to Palmer's Patent, that it was not a Patent for a fabric; that "embedding" meant th it each thread was to be buried in the rubber so as to be kept out of contact with the ones parallel to it, and that vulcanisation was essential; that the threads in the Defendants' fabric were in close contact with one another, and that the Defendants, not having "embedding vulcanisation, did not infringe; that, furthermore, the Patent was invalidated by the prior user of M. & Co. The action was dismissed with costs, including costs of certain of the Particulars of Objections. The costs of three Counsel were allowed and the costs of the short. hand notes. THE PALMER TYRE, LD. v. THE PNEUMATIC TYRE COMPANY, LD., AND OTHERS, p. 451. nor 18. A Patent for improvements in nursery chairs held not to have bee infringed, as the Plaintiff made no claim in his Specification for the parts of the Defendant's chair of which he |