Page images
PDF
EPUB

INFRINGEMENT-continued.

complained.-Action for infringement.-Sufficiency of claim.-
No infringement.
D. obtained Letters Patent for "Improve-
"ment in nursery chairs." The essence of his invention was to
convert the chair from a high chair to a low chair by so revolving
the seat and back as to make the seat of the high chair become the
back of the low chair and vice versa. In his chair as manufactured
he introduced a hinged frame to support the seat, but he made no
claim for this in his Specification. T. also obtained a Patent for
"Improvements in nursery chairs," and shortly afterwards assigned
his Patent and business to T. & Co., Ld. In the manufacture of
their chairs under this Patent the Company used a hinged frame
similar to that used by D., and a subsidiary spring which was also
introduced by D. In 1899 D. brought an action for infringement
against the Company. The validity of D.'s Patent was not disputed,
and had been upheld in a previous action.-Held, that there was no
infringement, as the Plaintiff made no claim in his Specification for
the portions of his chair which the Defendants introduced into
theirs. DAVIES v. TOWNSEND & CO., LD., p. 497.

19. A Patent for a starting device for gas engines held to be
valid, and, according to its true construction, to have
been infringed.-Action for infringement.-Construction of
Specification.-Action dismissed. The owners of a Patent for a
starting device for gas engines brought an action to restrain the
Defendants from infringing. The Defendants alleged that they
had not infringed, and that the Letters Patent were invalid.-Held,
that, according to the true construction of the Specification, the
Defendants had not infringed. No judgment was delivered on the
other issues raised. The Plaintiffs appealed.-Held, that, according
to the true construction, the Defendants had infringed, and that
the Patent was valid. The appeal was allowed. BRITISH MOTOR
SYNDICATE, LD., AND OTHERS v. J. E. H. ANDREWS & Co., LD.,
p. 577.

20. Action for infringement of a Patent for a combination. Infringement not found. Defendants' combination different.Patent.-Action for infringement.-Two operations performed at the same time.-Different means of effecting the same object.-Action for infringement.-Injunction refused. The Plaintiffs were proprietors of a Patent for a machine by means of which two operations heretofore done singly could be performed simultaneously. The Defendants brought about the same result, and effected a similar saving of time, by means of a machine constructed in a different manner which involved nothing more than a combination of old methods.-Held, that the Defendants had not infringed the Plaintiffs' Patent. Proctor v. Bennis (L.R. 36 Ch. D. 740; 4 R.P.C. 333) considered. JOHN VAREY, LD. v. WALKER, MITCHELL, & Co., p. 596.

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. See also THREATS (ACTION TO RESTRAIN), No. 3.

1. Injunction refused on the ground of delay by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant undertaking to keep an account.-Action for infringement.-Motion for interlocutory injunction.-Delay.—

INTERLOCUTÓRY INJUNCTION—continued.

2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Injunction refused. The Plaintiffs in May 1899 commenced
an action for infringement of Letters Patent and moved for an
interim injunction. The ownership of the Patents had been the
subject of litigation in Germany, but in October 1898, judgment was
given against R. in favour of the right of the Plaintiffs to an assign-
ment from him of the Patents, and an appeal from that judgment
was disposed of in January 1899. T., one of the Defendants,
claimed the right to work the invention under a license granted by
R., and he had so worked since 1894, but, as alleged by the Plaintiffs,
with notice of their title.-Held, that assuming that the Defendant
T. had notice of the Plaintiffs' title, yet in view of the delay on the
part of the Plaintiffs (who knew of the Defendant's working) in
asserting their rights, and 'on the Defendant T. undertaking to keep
an account, no Order ought to be made on the motion; the costs of
the motion were reserved. ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT FUR CARTON-
NAGEN INDUSTRIE v. TEMLER AND ANOTHER, p. 447.

2. Injunction granted in an action for infringement against
licensees who had obtained their license through mis-
apprehension on the part of the Patentees.-Action for
infringement.-Motion for interlocutory injunction.-Alleged license.
-License given under misapprehension.-Injunction granted. S.,
when purchasing a certain machine, was told by the vendor that he
would have to obtain a license from the owners of the Patents which
would cost 57.; he thereupon forwarded 57. to the owners of the
Patents" for perpetual license for graphophone for public exhibition;
"also license plate for same." The owners of the Patents acknow-
ledged the receipt of 57. for royalty, and enclosed a license plate, but
no formal license was executed. On the owners of the Patents
making further inquiries of S., he wrote saying that the machine in
question was a graphophone grand. S., refusing to pay a further
sum of 451. to make up the charge of 50l. which the owners of the
Patents alleged to be their charge for a license for a graphophone
grand, the latter commenced an action for infringement of their
Patents, alleging that they were misled by the terms of the applica-
tion to them, and that the graphophone grand was a different
instrument from the graphophone, which name by itself would
indicate to those in the trade one of the smaller instruments. They
moved for an injunction until the trial, which was granted. EDISON-
BELL CONSOLIDATED PHONOGRAPH Co., LD. v. ROSENBERG &
SCOTT, p. 608.

INVENTION. See also SUBJECT-MATTER.

>

1. A Patent for improvements in felt handles for velocipedes, golf 'sticks, &c., held to be invalid for want of invention. COOPER & Co. (BIRMINGHAM), LD. v. BAEDEKER, p. 363.

2. When I come to analyse these elements of the supposed invention I confess I am unable to see that there is anything in them which amounts to invention. What I should say is that it is a rather more skilled and experienced application of the same old and well-known tools to the same sort of process that is applicable to fabrics of a finer texture. My Lord's, I am unable to disagree with the learned

[merged small][ocr errors]

INVENTION-continued.

LICENSE.

Judges who have held that really that is not any substantial invention at all. I quite admit the difficulty there is, when once you admit invention, in saying, if the invention is an invention at all and is at all useful, that you can draw any exact or precise line as to the quantity of invention that is necessary to support a patent; but I confess I go a little further than the learned Judges below, because, I think, considering this alleged invention in its real essence and nature, there is no invention at all. It is simply a more skilled application of well understood tools and well understood processes. Per HALSBURY, L.C. DREDGE v. PARNELL, p. 629.

f

1

1. Limited License. Held, that the purchase of goods, sold in breach of the terms of a limited license, was an infringement where the purchaser was aware of the terms of the limited license.-Patented article sold under limited license.-Infringement of Patent.-Infringement of limited license. -Injunctions on both grounds. 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 this amounted to an infringement. The Plaintiffs also sold their goods under a limited license as to the sale and use of them. The terms of this license were known to the Defendant, who disregarded it. The Defendant contended that he was not bound by the limited license on the ground that such conditions were only binding on persons who bought from the Plaintiffs direct. He had bought from dealers, and there was no privity between himself and the Plaintiffs. Breach of the condition was not, he contended, an infringement of any patent right, but was purely contractual in its nature, and that an injunction was not the proper remedy.-Held, that where a patented article was sold under a limited license, if the terms of the license were known to the person purchasing, whether the purchaser bought direct from the Patentee or from a third party, the breach of the conditions imposed by the limited license constituted an infringement of the patent rights in the article, and that such a case was one where an injunction might be granted. THE INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO. AND OTHERS v. BROGDEN, p. 179.

2. Breach of a limited license held not to be proved. Patented article sold under limited license.-Alleged infringement of Patent by Breach of License.-Action dismissed.-Admissibility of evidence of acts subsequent to date of writ. The Plaintiffs sold mantles of their manufacture with a limited license. It was alleged that the Defendants had infringed by breach of the limited license. Evidence was offered of acts done after the issue of the writ to strengthen and explain the evidence prior to the date of the writ-Held, that the evidence of acts prior to the writ was not sufficient to prove the Plaintiffs' case, and that, where an action is for infringement and

LICENSE-continued.

not to restrain threatened infringement, evidence of acts subsequent to the date of the writ is inadmissible. The Shoe Machinery Company v. Cutlan, 12 R.P.C. 342 followed. WELSBACH INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LD. v. DOWLE AND THE LONDON AND SUBURBAN MAINTENANCE Co., p. 391.

NOVELTY. See SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION OF No. 3.

1. A Patent for improvements in a certain portion of web printing and folding machines held to be invalid for want of novelty, prior user for business purposes and not by way of experiment having been established.-Patent.-Action for Infringement.Validity-Novelty.-Prior publication.-Prior user.-Action dismissed.-Appeal dismissed. In 1885, Letters Patent were granted for improvements in a certain portion of web printing and folding machines, and in 1896 the proprietors of these Letters Patent commenced an action against a firm for infringement of the same, the particular part alleged to be infringed being the longitudinal folding apparatus. The Defendants denied infringement and validity, alleging want of subject-matter and want of novelty by reason of the prior publication of the invention in several Specifications and also prior publication by the importation of machines containing the mechanism in question, which machines were alleged to have been seen by divers persons and to have been used in the United Kingdom before the date of the said Letters Patent. The Plaintiffs contended that if the machines were seen, they were seen under a pledge of confidence, and that any user of them was merely for the purpose of testing.-Held at the trial that the Letters Patent were invalid for want of novelty, machines embodying the invention having been sold and used in the United Kingdom before the date of the application for the Patent. The Plaintiffs appealed.-Held by the Court of Appeal that the invention had been used within the realm prior to the date of the Patent by others in conjunction with the Patentees, and that the Patent was invalid. The appea! was dismissed with costs. The effect of obligations of secrecy discussed. Newall v. Elliott, 4 C.B.N.S., 293, distinguished. HOE & Co. v. FOSTER & SONS, p. 33.

[ocr errors]

2. A Patent relating to methods of opening and closing fanlights, &c., held to be bad for want of novelty.-Patent.-Action for infringement.-Novelty. Subject-matter. — Disconformity. This action was for the infringement of a Patent relating to various methods of opening and closing fanlights, skylights, ventilators and analogous articles. The Defendant denied infringement, and alleged the invalidity of the Patent on the grounds of want of novelty, utility and subject-matter, and also of disconformity.-Held, that the Plaintiff's Letters Patent were invali on the ground of want of novelty, want of subject-matter and disconformity. The action was dismissed with costs. ADAMS V. STEVENS, p. 225.

3. A Patent for an improved pedal for bicycles held to be invalid for lack of invention and want of novelty in regard to what was disclosed by several prior Specifications.-Patent.-Action for infringement.- Validity.-Subject-matter.-Novelty.-Patent

NOVELTY-continued.

held invalid.-Action dismissed. In 1893, Letters Patent were granted to M. for an improved pedal for bicycles and other machines; the pedal described was adjustable so as to adapt its width to the required breadth of tread. The Complete Specification was accepted on the 23rd of September 1893. The Patent subsequently became vested in W. On the 25th of September 1893, W. applied for Letters Patent, which were also granted, for a new and improved width adjusting pedal for bicycles and velocipedes. W. commenced an action against a company for infringement of these two Patents, and of a third Patent, subsequently abandoned. In the course of the trial it was admitted by one of the Plaintiff's expert witnesses that the alleged infringing pedal did not infringe M.'s Patent. As regards W.'s Patent, the Defendants disputed its validity on the ground of want of novelty by reason of anticipation by the Specifications of M.'s Patent and of several earlier Patents.-Held, that, having regard to the alleged auticipations and especially to M.'s Specification, there was not sufficient invention to support W.'s Patent, and that it was invalid for want of novelty. The action was dismissed with costs. WATERSON v. W. A. LLOYD'S CYCLE FITTINGS, LD., p. 277.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

4. A Patent for improvements in felt handles for velocipedes, golf sticks, &c., held to be invalid for want of novelty.Action for infringement. - Novelty. Subject-matter.-Infringement.-Patent held invalid.-Action dismissed. Letters Patent having been granted in 1894 for an invention of " Improvements "in felt handles for velocipedes, golf sticks, and for other articles, "and in the manufacture of the said handles," the owners of the Patent in 1898 brought an action for infringement of the same. The first claim of the Specification was "making felt handles for "velocipedes, golf sticks, tennis rackets and other articles by first. "grooving a piece of sheet felt longitudinally at intervals, then "bending the same and securing the meeting edges together so as "to form a felt cylinder grooved from end to end on the outside, "which is or is not afterwards reduced towards the ends, all "substantially as set forth"; the other claims being claims for the handles "made from sheet felt grooved longitudinally at intervals "and bent into a cylinder with the grooves outside, &c." The Defendant, who sold handles made from sheet felt bent into a cylinder and afterwards grooved longitudinally, denied infringement, and alleged the invalidity of the Patent on the grounds. (inter alia) of want of novelty and want of subject-matter. It appeared that felt handles for the same purposes were old, but had been made out of a solid block of felt by boring and turning the same, and such handles had been grooved. It was alleged that a considerable economy was effected by the use of sheet felt, and a large sale of the patented handles was proved.-Held, that the Patent was invalid for want both of novelty and invention, and that, even if valid, the Defendant had not infringed, as grooving before bending the felt was of the essence of the invention. Judgment was given for the Defendant with costs. COOPER & Co. (BIRMINGHAM), LD. v. BAEDEKER, p. 363.

5. A Patent for improvements in duplicating writing apparatus held to be invalid for want of novelty.-Patent.-Action for infringement.-Novelty.-Construction of Specification.-Subject

« PreviousContinue »