Page images
PDF
EPUB

Queen v. Prince

Queen v. Tolson

Ralston v. Smith

R. v. Wheeler

...

Ratcliffe . Evans

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

:

...

...

...

...

...

L. R. 2, C. C. R. 151

L. R. 23, Q. B. 173

11 H. L. C. 223 ...

2 B. & Ald. 345...

L. R. 1892, 2 Q. B. 524, 528

Reddaway v. Banham (Fol-13 R. P. C. 218 ;

lowed, p. 453. guished, p. 581)

Reddaway . Bentham

...

Riekmann v. Thierry ...

Ripley v. Bandey

Distin

...

L. R. 1896, A. C. 199

[blocks in formation]

River Wear Commissioners v.L. R., 2 App. Cas. 743 ...

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

482

634, 670 542

261

542

346

172

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Royal College of Veterinary L. R. 1892, 1 Q. B. 557...

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

L. R. 3, App. Cas. 391 ...

L. R. 18, Ch. D. 395

11 R. P. C. 84

1 Pluw. 201

13 R. 1 ...

...

:

...

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Townsend v. Hararth (Distin-L. R. 12, Ch. D. 830n ... guished, p. 449)

...

...

United Horseshoe Nail Co. v. L. R. 13 App. Cas. 401;
Stewart
(5 R. P. C. 269

...

...

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

...

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

:

:

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Van Duzer's and Leaf's Trade 4 R. P. C. 31, L. R. 34, Ch. D. 623 2, 6, 15, 479

Van Heyden v. Neustadt

Vickers v. Siddell

...

L. R. 14, Ch. D. 230

J7 R. P. C. 292;
L. R. 15, App. Cas. 499

...

...

{

Wenham Gas Co. v. Champion 9 R. P. C. 49

White v. Mellin

...

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

542

[blocks in formation]

Wittman v. Oppenheim

Williams v. Nye

Wood v. Zimmer

...

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

296, 445 655

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

...

4 R. P. C. 166

...

[ocr errors]

...

...

L. R. 5, H. L. 508

...

L. R. 4, Q. B. 213, 730 ...

211

301

164

...

...

... 609, 625

...

28, 116, 679

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DIGEST

OF THE

PATENT, DESIGN, TRADE MARK, AND
OTHER CASES

REPORTED IN

VOL. XV. OF THE REPORTS OF PATENT, &c. CASES.

COMPILED BY

GEOFFREY C. COBB, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

DIGEST OF PATENT CASES.

AMENDMENT OF SPECIFICATION.

1. Application for leave to amend during proceedings for revocation granted.-Application for leave to amend Specification during proceedings for revocation of patent.-Opposition thereto on the grounds, inter alia, that the amendments proposed would make the Specification, as amended, describe and claim an invention different from and larger than that claimed in the original Specification, and that the amendments were intended to include within the scope of the patent an invention described and claimed in the Specification of a subsequent patent owned by the Opponents.-Amendments allowed by the Comptroller-General.-Held, on appeal, by the Law Officer, that the amendments were proper for allowance.-Decision of the Comptroller-General upheld.-Scope of disclaimer. DELLWIK'S PATENT, p. 682.

2. Refusal to allow the words "a process for preparing" to be changed into "the manufacture of."-Application for leave to amend a Specification.-The Comptroller-General refused to allow one of the proposed amendments.-The Law Officer affirmed the Comptroller-General's decision.-" Process" and "manufacture."International Convention. VIDAL'S PATENT, p. 721.

AMENDMENT OF SPECIFICATION-continued.

3. "Disclaimer" in Section 19 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, must be read strictly, and does not include corrections or explanations.-Petition for revocation.-Application for leave to apply to amend Specification.-Disclaimer.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Sections 18 and 19, and Patents Act, 1888, Section 5. A patent having been granted to O. in 1896, P. in 1897 presented a petition for revocation and in his Particulars of Objections alleged (inter alia) want of utility, insufficiency of Specification, and that the alleged invention. was not capable of being carried into practice. O. applied for liberty to apply at the Patent Office for leave to amend his Specification, and in his affidavit filed in support admitted that two statements in the Specification were incorrect. The Petitioner objected to liberty being given on the ground that the proposed alterations were not by way of disclaimer, and that under Section 19 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, there was no jurisdiction to give liberty to apply except where disclaimer only was sought.-Held, that the word disclaimer in Section 19 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, must be read strictly, and does not include corrections or explanations except such explanations as may be required for the purpose of defining the disclaimer. The application was dismissed with costs, such costs to be costs in the petition, and to be the petitioner's in any event. OWEN'S PATENT, p. 755.

4. Application for leave to amend granted. No special terms imposed although asked for by opponent.-Application for leave to amend Specification.-Imposition of special terms refused.-The owners of a patent applied for leave to amend the Specification. This was opposed on the ground that the amendments proposed would make the Specification as amended claim an invention substantially larger than or substantially different from the invention originally claimed, and that to render the patent valid by amendment would be to enable the Applicants to carry out threats which they had made to attack the Opponents, and interfere with their business. The Opponents asked that the amendment might be refused, or that special terms should be imposed.-Held, by the Comptroller General, that leave to amend should be granted, without imposing the special terms asked for. The Opponents appealed.Held, on appeal, by the Law Officer, that the decision of the Comptroller-General was right, and that the appeal should be dismissed. ALLISON'S PATENT, p. 408.

ANTICIPATION.

In

1. Patent for improvement in manufacture of smokeless powder
held to be anticipated.-Action for infringement.-Validity.-
Disconformity.-Anticipation.-Patent held to be anticipated and
not to be infringed.-Action dismissed.-Higher scale costs.
1887, a patent was granted for "Improvements in the manufacture
"of explosives." According to the Provisional Specification, the
invention consisted "in the employment of a nitrated body such as
"nitrated woody matter or fibre which is dissolved in a solvent such
"as ether and then dried and reduced to powder." In the Complete
Specification, the Patentee claimed, first, "The manufacture of an
explosive suited for use in small arms or ordnance by taking
"vegetable fibres, woody matters, cellulose or the l'ke.
and

66

ANTICIPATION-continued.

66

66

66

"nitrating them and then completely dissolving them in acetic ether or acetone or like solvents of equal strength, until they assume a "gelatinous plastic consistency, and forming the mass into suitable shapes, and drying or allowing to dry or distilling off the solvent "from the mass, and finally, when required, reducing the product to "a powder or granular or other required form, with or without the use therewith of an oxygen yielding substance, or both an oxygen "yielding substance and a hydro-carbon all substantially as herein"before described." H., in whom the patent had become vested, brought an action for infringement thereof against the S. Company, who alleged want of novelty, want of subject-matter, insufficiency, disconformity, anticipation by (inter alia) publication of W.'s German patent. The Defendants, in their manufacture of powder, treated nitro-cellulose with acetone, but they alleged that the greater part of the fibre was not dissolved. The evidence showed that it was known at the date of the patent that nitro-cellulose could be dissolved by the substances named by the Patentee; that the solvents were of two classes-one, which included acetone, dissolving both trinitro-cellulose and dinitro-cellulose, and the other, which included ether-alcohol, dissolving dinitro-cellulose only; that the result of solution was to reduce the nitro-cellulose to an amorphous condition, although chemically unchanged, and that the solvent could be evaporated off. W.'s patent described the manufacture of cartridge cases out of an explosive material obtained by adding chlorate of potash to guncotton, drying and pouring such a quantity of collodion thereon until the saturation effected a dissolution of the cotton, and a gelatinous mass was produced.-Held, that it was an essential feature of the invention that there should be complete dissolution of the fibre of the nitro cellulose; that the Provisional Specification included both classes of nitro-cellulose and both classes of solvents, and that there was no disconformity or insufficiency of description; that on the above-mentioned construction of the patent it was not shown to be anticipated, except by W.'s patent, but was anticipated by that; and that the Defendants had not infringed, since in their powder the fibre remained undissolved to a considerable extent. The action was therefore dismissed, with costs on the higher scale. HEIDEMANN v. THE SMOKELESS POWDER Co., LD., p. 305.

2. Patent held to have been anticipated by prior patents.-Action for infringement.-Prior grant.-Prior user.-Anticipation.-Subject-matter.-Utility.-Pleadings. On the 1st of June 1892, a patent for an improvement in electrical insulating sheets was granted to W. On the following day a patent for a similar invention was granted to D. The M. Company, as proprietors, brought an action for infringement of both patents against the E. Company, but subsequently dropped the claim in respect of W.'s patent. The Defendants denied infringement of D.'s patent, and alleged that it was invalid on the following, among other, grounds :-Prior grant to W. in his patent, anticipations by S. and T., and prior users of the invention. The Plaintiffs, by their reply, denied the prior grant to W., and alleged that W.'s patent was invalid by reasons of the matters stated in the Defendants' original Particulars of Objections. The Defendants rejoined that even if W.'s patent had been anticipated, that was no defence to the plea of prior grant. It was admitted at the trial that the Specification of S. and T. anticipated W.'s patent. -Held, that as S. and T. anticipated W., D.'s patent was not invalid

« PreviousContinue »