NOVELTY-continued. matter.-Anticipation. Prior knowledge-Insufficient description No infringement. In 1887 a Patent was granted to A. for improvements in duplicating writing apparatus. D. became owner of the Patent, and in 1889 brought an action against the Defendants for infringement. The Defendants denied infringement, and denied the validity of the Patent on the grounds (inter alia) that the alleged invention was anticipated by several prior Patents, and that a person following A.'s directions would not obtain the result described in the Specification.-Held, on the true construction of the Specification, that the Patent was invalid for want of novelty, and the action was dismissed with costs. Hills v. Evans (4 D.G.F. & J. 438) followed. DICK v. ELLAM'S DUPLICATOR CO., p. 414. 6. A Patent for a device for printing late news in newspapers held to be invalid for want of novelty.-Patent.-Action for infringement. — Anticipation. — Subject matter. - Novelty.-Patent held invalid. The owners of a Patent for a device for printing late news in newspapers sued the Defendants for infringement. By the Patentees' apparatus this was accomplished by means of an auxiliary drum mounted on an auxiliary shaft, so as to be moveable to any position along the shaft. The drum was constructed to carry a box holding the type. The Specification claimed both the method of holding the type in the box and also the combination of the drum with the main stereotyping cylinder. The Defendants also used a moveable drum mounted on an auxiliary shaft, but used linotype slugs instead of type, and had a box of different construction and a different method of holding the slugs. It was argued that the Defendants did not infringe the claim for the construction of the box and the method of holding the type, and that the Plaintiffs' Patent was bad for (inter alia) want of subject-matter and anticipation.-Held, that the Plaintiffs' Patent was invalid for want of novelty. TAYLOR & SCOTT v. ANNAND AND THE NORTHERN PRESS AND ENGINEERING Co., LD., p. 547. PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS. See also COSTS, No. 3. Evidence which did not attack the validity of the Patent held to be admissible without Particulars of Objections, even though the scope of the Patent was thereby narrowed. A. APPLEBY'S TWIN ROLLER CHAIN, LD. v. ALBERT EADIE CHAIN, LD., p. 325. PATENT AGENT. Unregistered person held not entitled to describe himself as a Patent Agent.-" Patent Agent."-Person knowingly describing himself as such without being registered.-"Right acquired.”Alleged repeal of Register of Patent Agents Rules 1889.-Conviction. -Appeal dismissed.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, section 101, Patents, &c. Act, 1888, sections 1 and 27.-Register of Patent Agents Rules 1889, Patent Rules 1890, Rule 81, and Register of Patent Agents Rules 1891. An information was in 1898 preferred against S. for knowingly describing himself as a Patent Agent, he not being registered as such under the Patents, &c. Act, 1888. S. was convicted and fined, but a case was stated by the magistrate. S. had PATENT AGENT-continued. practised, and described himself as a Patent, Agent before the coming into force of the Act of 1888, and had made the necessary statutory declaration, and thereupon the required certificate of the Board of Trade, that he was entitled to be registered, had been issued, but he had not paid any fees and had not been registered as a Patent Agent. The special case raised the questions : (1) whether the Appellant had acquired a right in the description "Patent Agent under the Patents, &c. Act, 1888, section 27, and (2) whether the Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1889, were repealed by the Patent Rules, 1890, and, if so, whether they were revived by the Register of Patent Agent Rules, 1891.-Held, by LAWRANCE, J., and CHANNELL, J., that the Appellant had not acquired a right within the meaning of the Patents, &c. Act, 1888, section 27, and that if the Rules of 1889 were repealed as contended, they were revived by the Rules of 1891. The conviction was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. STAREY V. GRAHAM, p. 106. PATENTS, &c. ACT, 1883. Section 4. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 5. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 11. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. MEYER'S APPLICATION, p. 526. Section 18. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 19. CHATWOOD'S PATENT, p. 370. CHATWOOD'S PATENT SAFE Section 26. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 32. ELLAM V. MARTYN & CO., p. 28. A. APPLEBY'S TWIN ROLLER CHAIN, LD. v. ALBERT EADIE CHAIN, LD., p. 318. BERLINER AND OTHERS v. THE EDISON BELL CONSOLIDATED PHONOGRAPH CO., LD., p. 336. HOFFNUNG & Co. v. SALSBURY, p. 375. DE MARE'S PATENT, p. 528. Section 46. BARTLETT'S PATENT. GORMULLY PETITION, p. 641. Section 69. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 87. BARTLETT'S PATENT. GORMULLY PETITION, p. 641. Section 90. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 95. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 101. STAREY v. GRAHAM, P. 106. PATENTS, &c. ACT, 1888. Section 1. STAREY v. GRAHAM, p. 106. Section 4. R. v. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL, ex parte TOMLINSON, p. 233. Section 27. STAREY v. GRAHAM, p. 106. PATENT RULES, 1890. Rules 60 to 66. BARTLETT'S PATENT. GORMULLY PETITION, p. 641. PETITION FOR REVOCATION. See REVOCATION. PRACTICE. See also COSTS: EVIDENCE and INFRINGEMENT, No. 12, 13, 14, and 16. 1. An order by a judge on an application for liberty to amend Particulars of Objections, so far as it deals with costs, is not appealable. HERBERT WM. WILSON AND WILSON BROTHERS BOBBIN CO., LD. v. WILSON & Co. (BARNSLEY), LD., p. 315. 2 In an action for infringement where the expert evidence was conflicting, the Court of Appeal procured a report from an independent expert which was supplemented by some verbal explanations by the expert Because it was so supplemented the Court refused to allow the report of such expert to be entered as read in the Order of the Court. BRITISH MOTOR SYNDICATE, LD., AND OTHERS v. J. E. H. ANDREWS & Co., LD., p. 595. PRIOR USER. Held to have been established.-Patent.-Action for infringement.Prior user established.—Action dismissed. Letters Patent having been granted in 1888 to D. and W. for "improvements in water gauges for steam and other boilers," the registered owners of this and another Patent commenced in 1897 an action for infringement of the same. At the trial the Plaintiffs after the opening relied on the Patent of 1888. Among the defences relied on was prior user by P. of the invention during the years from 1877 to 1881. -Held, that the action must be dismissed with costs on the ground as to the 1888 Patent that prior user by P. was established, and as to the other Patent on the ground of non-infringement. DEWRANCE v. FLETCHER BROTHERS, p. 150. PRIOR USER BY A PATENTEE. 66 ་་ According to my view this was a contract to supply and erect these "machines, including this Patent for folding that had been patented "in America, and the price that was to be received by the Patentees "in America, for supplying and erecting these machines, was 6,8007. They sent over their men, and they then proceed to erect this "machinery which they had agreed to supply. I very much doubt "myself, whether in such a case it would have made any difference if they had in the most solemn way got an engagement for secrecy. I "have the same doubt that I should have in that case where an "inventor who had not taken out a Patent agreed to sell and deliver "the patented article, and then, when he did sell and deliver the patented article, said to the purchaser immediately after delivery : "I am going to patent this, you will undertake, will you not, to keep "this matter a secret and not to disclose my invention. It seems to me that in such a case, even if such an engagement had been entered 66 66 PRIOR USER BY A PATENTEE-continued. 66 66 "into, there would have been a user by the Patentee himself. I am “ aware that the Statute of Monopolies speaks of user by others, and "at the same time there is no doubt that a user by the Patentee does prevent his subsequently taking out Letters Patent, and it seems to me that really, wherever you have a Patentee supplying the patented "article in such a way and to such an extent that he cannot recall the "patented article-that he cannot impose any obligation of secrecy"immediately you have that state of things, it becomes impossible for "the inventor subsequently to take out Letters Patent. Per VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J. HOE & Co. v. FOSTER & SONS, p. 40. PROLONGATION 1. Petition for Prolongation.-Motion for relief in consequence of the Petition not having been presented within the time prescribed by the 25th Section of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883. Motion refused. ADAM'S PATENT, p. 1. 2. Prolongation refused on account of lack of merit in the invention and failure to prove insufficient remuneration.Petition for prolongation. Invention not sufficiently meritorious. Failure to prove inadequate remuneration. The beneficial owners of a Patent for improvements in steam generators applied for a prolongation. The invention was admittedly useful. The accounts showed a profit on the foreign Patents and also on boilers fitted to boats not constructed by the Petitioners, but a loss on boilers fitted to boats constructed by the Petitioners. In the case of these latter, the profits or loss had been arrived at by taking the profit or loss on the boats, including the boilers, and dividing it between the boilers and the boat exclusive of the boilers in proportion to their relative cost.-Held, that the invention, though useful, was not especially meritorious, and that the Petitioners had failed to prove that sufficient remuneration had not or could not have been made, and that, therefore, the Judicial Committee could not advise Her Majesty that the prayer of the petition should be granted. THORNYCROFT'S PATENT, p. 202. 3. Prolongation refused.-Petition for prolongation.-Patentee's interest in Patent insufficient.-Patent acquired by a Company as a speculation.-Accounts not satisfactory.-Petition refused. CLARK'S PATENT, p. 431. 4. Duty of Petitioners. 66 66 66 66 - 66 Then, the accounts are certainly most unsatisfactory. It has often been laid down that a Patentee who comes to make an application for the prolongation of a Patent ought from the first to keep his accounts in such a manner that "it may be clear to the Court what profits have been made. In this case several matters foreign to this Patent have been mixed up in "the accounts, and the accounts appear to have been kept in the most unsatisfactory manner. That also is covered by authority, "which it is not necessary to read; but I refer to what is laid down "in Thomas' Patent and Saxby's Patent, both of which are directly "applicable to this case." Per LORD MACNAGHTEN, Re CLARK'S PATENT, p. 433. 66 D REGISTER OF PATENT AGENTS' RULES, 1889. STAREY V. GRAHAM, p. 106. REGISTER OF PATENT AGENTS RULES, 1891. STAREY V. GRAHAM, p. 106. REVOCATION OF PATENT. 1. Petition for Revocation of Patent. Terms on which application for leave to apply to amend Specification will be granted. Petition for revocation.-Application for leave to apply to amend Specification.-Disclaimer.-Leave granted.-Terms of Order as to costs.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, sections 18 and 19. Letters Patent having been granted to C. relating to improvments in safes, a Petition was presented for revocation of the same, Claims 6 and 7 being alleged to invalidate the Patent. The Respondents moved that they might be at liberty to apply at the Patent Office for leave to amend their Specification by way of disclaimer, so far as the claiming clauses thereof were concerned. The Petitioners opposed the motion, alleging that the proposed amendments were not really by way of disclaimer, and that therefore there was no jurisdiction to give leave to apply at the Patent Office. BYRNE, J., not being satisfied that the proposed amendments were not disclaimer, granted leave; the Applicants were ordered to pay in any event the costs of the application and of the Petition up to and occasioned by the disclaimer, except only so far as the proceedings in the matter might thereafter be utilised for the purpose of the hearing of the Petition, should the same be heard. In the event of the Petitioners electing not to proceed with the Petition, then the Respondents to pay all the costs of the proceedings. CHATWOOD'S PATENT, p. 370. 2. Insufficiency of description in the Specification alleged, but held not to be established. Patent held valid.-Petition for revocation.-Sufficiency of descriptions in Specification.--Alleged non-disclosure by Patentee.-Patent held valid.--Petition dismissed.—Costs on higher scale. In 1893 Letters Patent were granted for an invention of a "Manufacture of new chemical substances suitable for perfumery, "confectionery, and the like." The object of the invention was to produce ionone, a product having valuable properties for perfumery purposes. The Specification first described a condensation process for producing a ketone, CHO, termed by the Patentee pseudoionone, by subjecting a mixture of citral and acetone in the presence of water for a sufficiently long time to the action of hydrates of alkaline earths, or of hydrates of alkaline metals, or other alkaline agents, and stated that it might be produced, for instance, in shaking together for several days equal parts of citral and acetone with a solution of hydrate of barium, and dissolving the products of this reaction in ether; that the residue of the ether solution was then distilled and the fraction collected, which boiled at a pressure mentioned from 138° to 155° C., and from it the unattacked citral and unchanged acetone and volatile products of condensation of acetone by itself were separated in a current of steam, which readily carried off those bodies; that the product of condensation remaining in the |