« PreviousContinue »
REVOCATION OF PATENT-continued.
distilling apparatus was purified by the fractional distillation in vacuo; that under a pressure mentioned a liquid distilled off from 143° to 145° C. The Specification continued :- This product of condensation “ of citral with acetone, which I term pseudo-ionone, is a ketone “ readily decomposable by the action of alkalis." Its formula, index of refraction, and specific weight were given. A process of conversion of pseudo-ionone into ionone was given by heating for several hours in an oil-bath certain proportions of pseudo-ionone, water, sulphuric acid, and glycerine to the boiling point of the mixture, dissolving the product in ether, evaporating the latter, subjecting the residue to fractional distillation in vacuo, and collecting the fraction from 125° to 135o. The Specification continued as follows :--" This “ product may be still further purified by converting it by means of “phenyl-hydrazine, or other substituted ammonias, into a ketone “ condensation product decomposable under the action of dilute “ acids." The Specification described ionone, and claimed the two products as well as the processes. A Petition was presented for the revocation of the Patent. The Particular of Objections chiefly relied on at the hearing alleged that the Specification did not sufficiently describe the process by which pseudo-ionone could be produced, or one by which such body could be transformed into ionone in the respects therein mentioned, viz., (shortly) (1) in not giving the necessary conditions of the condensation process ; (2) in not giving any directions as to proportions, temperature, or strength of solution of the alkaline agent; (3) that certain of the alkaline agents would not affect the condensation, and that others could only be usefully employed under conditions not set forth ; (4) in not giving the pressore of steam ; (5) in not giving an effective way of separating the pseudo-ionone; and (6) in directing that phenylhydrazine should be used for effecting the purification of ionone, whereas it could not be successfully so used, and no sufficient directions were given for the purification of ionone; and (7) that the Specification did not disclose the best knowledge of the Patentee at the date of the Specification. During the hearing of the evidence it was objected by the Respondents, the owners of the Patent, that the Particulars of Objections did not allege the insufficiency of the description of the production of ionone from pseudo-ionone, and the Respondents' objection was upheld. The evidence of the chemists called on either side was conflicting, but the Respondents called evidence to show that the Patent had been worked on a commercial scale.—Held, by COZENS-HARDY, J., that the objections to the Patent failed, and that the Petition must be dismissed with costs. TIEMANN'S PATENT,
Office of Provisional and Office of Complete. Per LORD MACNAGHTEN,
PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND ANOTHER v. LEICESTER PNEUMATIC
SPECIFICATION (AMENDMENT OF). See AMENDMENT OF SPECIFICATION.
SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF)1. Held that, on the true construction of a Specification, that the
claim was for an improved apparatus and not for a process.Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.-Claim whether for apparatus or process.-Infringement not found.Certificate as to Particulars of Objections refused to a successful Defendant.-Appeal dismissed. In 1891, a Patent was granted to I. for “ Improved apparatus employed in the manufacture of “ artificial sandstone," and in 1893 à Patent was granted to A. for a similar object. An action was brought for infringement of these two Patents, but the first only was relied upon at the trial. The Defendant denied infringement and denied the validity of the Patents, and delivered Particulars of Objections. It was contended for the Plaintiff that on the true construction of the Specification the claim was not for a special form of apparatus but for a process, and that the Defendant was employing this process.-Held, at the trial, that the Plaintiff's claim was not for a process but for an improved apparatus, and that the whole object was to secure the rigidity of the moulls used by means of rings, bolts, and stays, and in the Defendant's apparatus there were not rings, bolts, or stays used. Therefore the Defendant had not infringed, and judgment was given for him, with costs. The Plaintiff appealed.- Held, that the judgment at the trial was right, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. PETERH v. OWEN, p. 83.
2. Held, on the true construction of a Specification, that the
Defendants had infringed.--Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.- Infringement. In 1888 Letters Patent were granted to L. and R. for “ Improvements in the manu“ facture of velvet," and in 1889 Letters Patent were granted to R. for “ Improvements in the manufacture of double pile fabrics," the first claim being for a "double pile fabric each cloth of which has its “ wefts held between two sets of ground warps and the pile warps “ tied into the ground by a single pick of weft only and in which in “ addition the backs of the pile warps are covered by a warp or warps “ floated over them substantially as described.” In 1897 the owners of these Patents commenced an action against a firm of D., for infringement of the same. In the course of the trial the case upon the 1888 Patent was withdrawn. The Defendants contended that the word “ float” as used in weaving of warps was a technical term signifying a passing over more than one weft, and alleged that the alleged infringing cloth had no floating warps and did not infringe the 1889 Patent.-Held, that the word “float” in the Specification of the 1889 Patent was used to describe the position of the backing warps relatively to the pile warps, and that the Defendants infringed. Judgment was given for the Plaintiffs on this Patent, but for the Defendants on the 1888 Patent. LISTER & Co., LD. AND OTHERS v.
Dix BROTHERS, p. 89. 3. On the construction of the plaintiffs' Specification, Patent held
void for want of novelty.-Patent.-Novelty.-Construction of Specification.-Anticipation. The Plaintiffs, who were owners of Letters Patent granted to H. for “Improvements in motors for electric “ railways," brought an action against the Defendants for infringement. The Defendants alleged (inter alia) that the Letters Patent had been anticipated and were void for want of novelty.-Beld, that, SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF)—continued.
according to the true construction of the Specification, the Letters
LD. added as Third Parties, p. 631.
" the anticipations. It is not required, except to a very slight extent, “ for the purpose of assisting me to construe the Specification. A “ Specification ought, I apprehend, to be regarded in the same
manner as any other document which has to be interpreted by the “ Court. It must be looked at as a whole. The claims must not be “ looked at as if they stood alone. A strained and unnatural interpre“ tation must be avoided. The true meaning and extent of the claims
must be sought for without reference to the effect this may have upon
the validity of the Patent.” Per COZENS-HARDY, J. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO., LD. v. IMPERIAL TRAMWAYS Co., LD., p. 638.
SPECIFICATION (SUFFICIENCY OF). See REVOCATION, No. 2.
1. A Patent relating to various methods of opening and closing fanlights, &c.,
held to be bad for want of subject-matter. ADAMS V. STEVENS,
2. A Patent for improvements in interceptors held invalid on the
ground of want of subject-matter.-Action for infringement.—Validity.- Want of subject matter.—Patent invalid.-Costs of Particulars.-Subsequent application. In 1893 Letters Patent were granted to D. for “Improvements in interceptors and the
In 1898 an action was commenced against the Defendants for infringement. The Defendants denied the validity of the Patent on the ground of want of subject-matter.—Held, at the trial, that the Letters Patent were in valid on that ground, and the action was dismissed with costs. Application was subsequently made by the Defendant for the costs of the Particulars of Objections. Costs of the Particulars of Objections were allowed, but no costs were given of the application. JAMES DUCKETT & SON, LD. AND JAMES
DUCKETT v. SANKEY & Son, p. 357. 3. A Patent for improvements in or appertaining to the manu
facture of candy held to be bad on the grounds of prior publication and want of subject-matter. ---Action for infringement.—Want of subject-maiter.—Prior publication.-Prior user.--Defence of non-infringement abandoned at trial.- Patent found invalid because of want of subject-matter and prior publication.—Certificate that Plaintiff had proved Particulars of Breaches granted.—Costs. The owner of a Patent for an invention for “Improvements in or appertaining to the manufacture of candy ” sued the Defendants for infringement. The Defendants pleaded non-infringement, and attacked the validity of the Patent on the grounds of prior publication, prior user, want of subject matter, and insufficiency of description.-Held, that the Plaintiff's Patent was
invalid on the grounds of prior publication and want of subjectmatter, and that the prior user alleged by the Defendants was an experimental user. The defence as to infringement having been abandoned at the trial a certificate that the Plaintiff had proved his Particulars of Breaches was granted, and the Plaintiff was allowed any extra costs occasioned by the Defendants having denied infringement. KANE v. GUEST & Co., p. 433.
4. A Specification of a Patent for a method of cutting necktie
linings with a revolving knife held not to show sufficient invention to form the subject-matter of a patent.-Action for infringement. — Subject matter. — Invention.
This was action for infringement of a Patent for a method of cutting, at one operation, necktie linings by means of a revolving band-knife, the material being clamped firmly between two templets of identical form.—Held, at the trial, that the invention claimed was not sufficient to form the subject-matter of a Patent, being merely the application of the use of a band-knife, in its ordinary function as a cutter of piles of substances, by applying it to necktie linings, when such finings to be cut were clamped together with guides. The action was therefore dismissed.--Held, on appeal, by LINDLEY, M.R., and RIGBY, L.J., (VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J., dissenting), that the decision of ROMER, J., was correct; and the appeal was dismissed, with costs. The Plaintiff appealed to the House of Lords.--Held, that there was no invention which was patentable, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Per LORD HALSBURY, L.C. A more skilled application of well-understood tools and well-understood processes is not a patentable invention, DREDGE v. PARNELL, ,
1. Motion by Respondents to a Petition for Revocation to commit
the chairman of the Petitioning Company for contempt of Court refused with costs on account of Respondents' conduct.-Petition for revocation.-Alleged contempt of Court. - Motion by Respondents to commit or restrain.-Conduct of Respondents.- Motion refused with costs.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, section 32. A Petition having been presented for the revocation of a Patent, the chairman of the Petitioning Company wrote a letter to certain papers, whereupon the Respondent Company moved to commit him for contempt of Court and to issue a writ of sequestration against the Petitioning Company, or, in the alternative, for an injunction to restrain them and the chairman from issuing any letter, &c. calculated to prejudice or impede the fair trial of the matter.—Held, by BYRNE, J., that, having regard to the conduct of the Applicants themselves, the motion must be refused with costs. Section 32 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, was not intended to justify public discussion (not being mere threats) on the merits of pending
litigation. DE MARE'S PATENT, p. 528. 2. “ It is clear that this Court has juris liction—it has been over and over
again stated—to prevent public statements being made calculated to prejudge a case, to interfere with or deter witnesses, or to impede
“ the course of justice. It is said that section 32 of the Patent Act has “ made a great difference. Section 32 enacts :-'Where any person
claiming to be Patentee of an invention by circulars, advertisements, " or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings “ • or liability'-and so on- any person or persons aggrieved thereby
may bring an action against him, and may obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats, and may recover such damage '—and so Then there is this proviso :
-Provided " that this section shall not apply if the person making such threats “ ' with due diligence commences and prosecutes an action for “ ' infringement of his Patent.' If, and so far as, threats might but “ for the section have been held by reason of their being threats to “ fall within the rule of the Court in reference to comment upon
public proceedings, this may have made a change. It is not
necessary for me to go into the question very closely, and say “ whether it has or has not; but I am clear on this, that the section “ was not meant beyond that to justify any public discussion on the “ merits of pending litigation." Per BYRNE, J. DE MARE'S PATENT,
THREATS (ACTION TO RESTRAIN). 1. Where a Defendant was restrained from publishing certain
threats and he afterwards circulated a pamphlet containing threats on behalf of a company as their agent. Held, that the threats were theirs and not his, and that no breach of the injunction had been committed. — Threats action, — Injunction granted.- Alleged breach.-Motion for committal.Threats by other persons published by Defendant as their agent.Defendant ordered to pay costs.-Appeal allowed, but no costs given to Defendant.--Patents, &c. Act, 1883, section 32. An injunction having been granted in a threats action restraining the Defendants from publishing statements that, or to the effect that, injunctions had or an injunction had been granted against the Plaintiffs restraining them from infringing certain Letters Patent, or any other Letters Patent, and also from threatening the Plaintiffs or any of the Plaintiffs' customers with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of the manufacture, sale, or purchase of a certain machine, a motion was made by the Plaintiffs to commit the Defendant D. for having broken the injunction. The Defendants had since the injunction circulated a pamphlet, on the back of which was a notice by a firm, for whom the Defendants were special agents, containing threats against infringers.—Held, by ROMER, J., that a breach of the injunction had been committed, and the Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion. The Defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed (CHITTY, L.J., dissenting), but no costs were given to
the Defendants. ELLAM V. MARTYN & Co., p. 28. 2. Patent.-Action to restrain threats.-Section 32 of Patents, &c. Act,
1883.-Due diligence. - Damages for malicious threats.--Trade libel.--Counterclaim for infringement.--Reply non-infringement.Evidence as to subject-inatter without Particulars of objections.-Special jury to try all questions of fact.-Stay refused. The E. Company were owners of a Patent for improvements in the