Page images



Where a patentee had given up his former business, and Personal devoted his whole time to the carrying out and improvement expenses. of his invention, which was held of considerable merit, the Privy Council allowed him to deduct £400 a year from the profits of the patent for such personal expenses, following Perkin's patent, 2 Web. P.R. 16 (1845), in considering the true profits of the patent.

But the profits gained by making an article here under a Additions patent, and selling it abroad to a foreigner, must be added to the profits of the patent.

Hardy's patent, 6 Moore P.C. 441 (1849). Assignees can petition for an extension of their patent, as Assignees. it is indirectly a benefit

to the inventor, for, “ in entertaining such applications their Lordships,” said Lord Brougham, in Morgan's patent, 1 Web. P.R. 738, “are, though not directly, yet mediately, and consequently, as it were, giving a benefit to the inventor, because, if the assignee is not remunerated at all, it might be said that the chance of the patentee making an advantageous conveyance to the assignee would be materially diminished, and consequently his interest damnified. For this reason consideration has been given to the claims of the assignee who has an interest in the patent.”

Here the application was refused, as the merit of

the invention was not great. The Privy Council generally, where an application on the part of an assignee has been granted, impose conditions whereby a proportion of the profits to arise from the patent shall go to the inventor. Russell's patent, 2 Moore P.C. 496 (1838).

The patentee had been inadequately remunerated through expenses caused by litigation. The Privy Council granted an extension to the assignee on con

dition that he paid the patentee £500 per annum. Hardy's patent, 6 Moore P.C. 441 (1849).

An extension granted to an assignee who had been profiting by his assignment, although the patentee had not, on condition that the assignee should give the patentee half the profits, and sell the article at a

certain price. Pitman's patent, L.R. 4 P.C. 87 (1871).

This case having no reference to the patentee, and the assignment being merely a speculation, extension

was refused. In granting an extension of a patent the Judicial Commit- The grant of an tee can insert any conditions or restrictions which they may think fit, and a condition that the Government and its con


Term of extension.


tractors may use the invention without the consent of the
patentee is usually inserted. This power of inserting conditions
is now derived under section 25, sub-section (5), which enacts:-
“If the Judicial Committee report that the

patentee has been inadequately remune-
rated by his patent, it shall be lawful
for Her Majesty in Council to extend the
term of the patent for a further term, not,
exceeding seven, or, in exceptional cases,
fourteen years; or to order the grant of
a new patent for the term therein men-
tioned, and containing any restrictions,
conditions and provisions that the Judicial

Committee may think fit.”
The following are a few cases of conditions being inserted
in the grant of an extension :
Pettit Smith, 7 Moore P.C. 133 (1850).

In this case, in granting a prolongation, the Judicial Committee imposed a condition that the Admiralty should have the right to contract with any one for the manufacturing of the invention for the service of Her

Majesty without any licence from the patentee. Carpenter's patent, 2 Moore P.C. N.S. 191, note (1854). Prolongation granted, the Privy Council refusing to

reservation on behalf of the Crown. Lancaster's patent, 2 Moore P.C. N.S. 189 (1864).

Prolongation granted; the patentee had received sums of money from the Government for expenses of experiments, but had not been sufficiently remunerated. The Privy Council refused to insert any reser

vation on behalf of the Crown.
In re Hughes' patent, L.R. 4 App. Ca. 174 (1879).

Prolongation granted; but on grounds of public policy the condition was annexed that the Government and all contractors employed by Government should

be at liberty to use the invention.
In re Napier's patent, L.R. 6 App. Ca. 174 (1881).

A patent for improvements in breaks and apparatus for giving motion to machinery. Here extension was

. granted, and restricted to the application of the patent to windlasses and cranes ; and “the new letters patent must also be subject to the condition which has become now a usual one in cases of inventions which

[ocr errors]

insert any

are likely to be required for use by the Government,
that the Government and its contractors should be

entitled to use the invention.
In re Moncrieff's patent, Times newspaper, July 4, 1883.

The usual clause was inserted for the use by the

Government of the invention.
These conditions will not now be requisite, section 27, sub-
section (2) of the Patents Act; 1883, enacting that :--
“The officers or authorities administering any de-

partment of the service of the Crown may,
by themselves, their agents, contractors, or
others, at any time after the application,
use the invention for the service of the
Crown, on terms to be before or after
the use thereof agreed on, with the
approval of the Treasury, between those
officers or authorities and the patentee,
or, in default of such agreement, on such
terms as may be settled by the Treasury

after hearing all parties interested. In hearing a petition for the extension of a patent, the Assessor. Judicial Committee has power to call in an Assesor under section 28, sub-section 2, which directs that the Judicial s. 28 (2). Committee of the Privy Council may, if they see fit, in any proceeding before them, call in the aid of an Assessor specially qualified, and try the case wholly or partly with his assistance. And sub-section (3) goes on to say, the remunera- s. 28 (3). tion, if any, to be paid to an Assessor under this section shall be determined by the Judicial Committee, and be paid in the same manner as the expenses of the execution of this Act. Section 25 (7), enacts :The costs of all parties of and incident to such Costs.

proceedings shall be in the discretion of
the Judicial Committee; and the orders of
the Committee respecting costs shall be
enforceable as if they were orders of a

Division of the High Court of Justice.”
Lord Lyndhurst, in re Westrupp and Gubbin's patent, i
Web. P.R. 556, thus expresses his opinion about giving costs :
"My opinion on the subject of costs is this : if a party

A lump sum for costs is awarded in the case of two sets of opponents in same interest.

entitled to oppose does come and oppose, and opposes successfully, if we do not give costs we shall discourage persons coming to protect the interests of the public. We have power to give costs in any matter referred to us, and sitting here as a Judicial Committee we can give costs under the general Act."

This opinion is quoted and followed by Sir James Colville, in Wield's patent, L.R. 4 P.C. 89 (1871),

Where, as there were two sets of opponents representing the same interests, the Council awarded a lump sum for costs, and ordered it to be apportioned between the two opponents, following the case of in re Johnson's patent, L.R. 4 P.C. 75 (1871); also in re

Hill's patent, i Moore P.C. N.S. 271 (1863). And by Rule VIII. of the Privy Council Rules in Patent Cases for the Judicial Committee, made under the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 83, the operation of which is saved by section 25, sub-section (6), of this Act, unless afterwards repealed by new rules, the Registrar of the Privy Council, or other officer to whom it may be referred to tax the costs incurred in the matter of any petition presented under the said Act, shall allow or disallow, in his discretion, all payments made to persons

of science or skill examined as witnesses to matters of opinion chiefly.



ALTHOUGH the granting or withholding of a grant of letters
patent is the prerogative of the Crown, which is especially
saved by the new Patents Act of 1883, section 116, enacting
“Nothing in this Act shall take away, abridge, or

prejudicially affect the prerogative of the
Crown in relation to the granting of any
letters patent, or to the withholding of a

grant thereof." And also the rule of law concerning grants laid down by Lord Stowell, in the case of “Rebeckah" (1 Ch. Rob. 227, 230), that “ All grants of the Crown are to be strictly construed against the grantee, contrary to the usual policy of law in the consideration of grants, and upon the just ground that the prerogatives and rights and emoluments of the Crown, being conferred upon it for great purposes and for public use, it shall not be intended that such prerogatives, rights and emoluments are diminished by any grant beyond what such grant by necessary and unavoidable construction shall take away." Yet the construction to be put on a grant of a patent is now enlarged by the Patents Act, 1883, which S. 27. enacts by section 27(1.) “A patent shall have to all intents the like

effect as against Her Majesty the Queen,
her heirs and successors, as it has against

a subject.
(2.) “But the officers or authorities administering

any department of the service of the Crown,
may by themselves, their agents, con-
tractors or others, at any time after the
application, use the invention for the

« PreviousContinue »