ANTICIPATION-continued.

on the ground of a prior grant to W.; but, if so, then D.'s patent was anticipated by S. and T., and also certain prior users of the invention were proved. On these grounds judgment was given for the Defendants, and a certificate as to some of their Particulars of Objections. MICA INSULATOR CO. v. THE ELECTRICAL CO., LD., P. 489.

3. Patent for a form of electric arc lamp held to have been anticipated.-Action for infringement.-Validity.-Anticipation.-Subject-matter.-Action dismissed, with costs. This was an action for the infringement of a patent for a particular form of electric arc lamp, in which an enamelled disc was placed immediately above the arc in order to serve as a reflector. The Defendant denied infringement, and alleged that the patent was invalid, as the invention had been anticipated by prior user, and there was not sufficient subjectmatter to support a patent.-Held, that the Plaintiffs' invention was anticipated, and the patent was invalid for want of subject-matter, and the action was dismissed, with costs. HELIOS ELEKTRICITAS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT v. BRAULIK, p. 523.

4. A patent for an improvement in water-closets or water-closet basins held to have been anticipated by an earlier Specification. ALLEN v. ABRAHAM PYATT & CO. AND ANOTHER, p. 723.

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTICULARS OF BREACHES.

1. Certificate granted only as to such particulars as were relied on at the trial. ALLEN v. OATES AND GREEN, p. 304.

2 Certificate granted. CASTNER-KELLNER ALKALI CO., LD. v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD., p. 662.

3. Certificate granted. AKTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR V. DAIRY OUTFIT CO., p. 338.

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS.

1. Certificate granted as to two patents. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, p. 52. Certificate granted as to two patents but refused as to the third. THE PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. THE TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON, HEATON, LD., AND OTHERS, p. 74, 236.

2. Certificate granted. FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN, &c. v. CASPERS, p. 94.

3. Certificate granted as to some of the particulars. MICA INSULATOR CO. V. THE ELECTRICAL CO., LD., p. 489.

4. Certificate granted. BRASSINGTON v. Cox, p. 504.

5. Certificate granted. OSMOND'S, LD. v. THE BALMORAL CYCLE Co., LD., p. 522.

6. Certificate granted as to some of the particulars. HOE & Co. v. FOSTER AND SONS, p. 580.

7. Certificate refused to a successful Defendant on the ground that the Particulars were not gone into at the trial of the action. PETERS v. OWEN, p. 668.

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTICULARS OF OBJECTIONS-continued. 8. Certificate granted as to two Specifications but refused as to prior user where 100 instances were set up but not gone into. ALLEN v. ABRAHAM PYATT & CO. AND ANOTHER, p. 726.

9. Certificate, limited to a particular anchor, granted as to some of the particulars. SINNETTE'S PATENT, p. 764.

CERTIFICATE OF VALIDITY OF PATENT HAVING COME IN QUESTION.

1. Certificate granted. FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN, &C. v. CASPERS, p. 94.

2. Certificate granted. WEBB v. KYNOCH & Co., LD., p. 269.

3. Certificate grantel. AKTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR v. DAIRY OUTFIT Co., p. 338.

4. Certificate granted. LUNES v. SHORT AND BEAL, p. 452.

5. Certificate granted. PNEUMATIC RUBBER STAMP Co. v. LINDNER, p. 533.

6. Certificate granted. CASTNER-KELLNER ALKALI CO., LD. v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD., p. 662.

7. Certificate refused where the Defendants raised the question of validity in the pleadings and abandoned it at the trial. PRESTO GEAR CASE AND COMPONENTS CO., LD. v. SIMPLEX GEAR CASE CO., LD., p. 644.

CLAIM.

66

66

Scope of Claim. "In the first place, it is necessary to ascertain what "the Patentee has claimed as his invention; and, in the next place, if "he has claimed the principle, and all modes of applying, his claim "will be indistinguishable from a claim to the principle itself, and will "be too large, as pointed out by Baron Alderson in Neilson v. Harford (1 Webster, 342 and 255). This subject will be found discussed and put on its proper footing in the Automatic Weighing Machine v. "Knight (6 R.P.C. 297, 304, and 308). Colourable imitations, that is, imitations with trivial or immaterial additions, or subtractions, or "substitutions of one thing for another known to answer the same purpose, are infringements, and are more frequently met with, and are more vigilantly looked for, when a Patentee has invented some "new principle than when his invention involves no such merit. But "whether a Patentee has discovered a new principle, or whether he "has not, his monopoly is confined to what he has already invented, "and what he has claimed as his invention;" per LINDLEY, M.R. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. THE TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON HEATON, LD., AND OTHERS, p. 241.

66

66

COMPULSORY LICENSE.

1. Petition for dismissed. Leave to amend refused. Costs.-Compulsory License.-Application to Board of Trade.-Joint Petition.Alleged default of Patentee.-Hearing before Referee.-Action for infringement pending.-Withdrawal of one Petitioner.-Leave to amend refused-Petition dismissed.--Costs.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 22. A Petition was presented by a German Company and an English Company for a compulsory license to them under two patents.

COMPULSORY LICENSE-continued.

The Germany Company were the owners of an English patent relating to burners for incandescent lamps, and the English Company had agreed with them for the exclusive right to manufacture lamps under such patent, and was about to commence the manufacture and sale thereof in Great Britain, and the Petitioners stated that it was necessary to use for such lamps incandescent mantles of the kind covered by the Respondents' patents. The Respondents to the petition stated that besides the patents to which the petition related, they were the owners of a certain patent for lamps and exclusive licenses under another patent, and that the German Company's lamp was an infringement of the two last mentioned patents, and that an action for infringement had been commenced against the English Company in consequence of the statements in the petition. In the course of the hearing of the petition the English Company withdrew, and the German Company asked leave to amend the petition by asking for a license to themselves, they undertaking to manufacture in this country, and they stated that if no such amendment was allowed there was an end of the matter. The Referee having reported to the Board of Trade, the Board dismissed the petition. There is no jurisdiction where a petition for a compulsory license is dismissed to award costs. CONTINENTAL GAS GLUHLICHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT (METEOR) PETITION, p. 727.

2. Procedure on petition discussed. CONTINENTAL GAS GLUHLICHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT (METEOR) PETITION, p. 730.

3. Petition for. License granted.-Patent.-Petition for compulsory licenses. Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 22.-Respondents' patents not worked in United Kingdom.-Refusal to grant licenses.-Offer by Respondents. Offer to sell materials to Petitioners on terms.Terms discussed.-Amount of royalty.-Default of Respondents.Respondents manufacturing in Germany.-No patents in Germany. -Evidence.-Witnesses called to support and oppose petition.License granted. LEVINSTEIN'S PETITION, p. 732.

4. Practice on petition as to evidence. See LEVINSTEIN'S PETITION, p. 738. 5. Practice on petition as to reply. See LEVINSTEIN'S PETITION, p. 741. 6. Terms of compulsory license. See LEVINSTEIN'S PETITION, p. 743.

66

7. Compulsory License granted. Meaning of the word "public" in section 22 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883. Right to begin. Compulsory Licence.-Application to Board of Trade.-Hearing before Referee.- Construction of Patents, &c. Act, 1883, section 22.Meaning of "the public."-Order for grant of Licence.-Amount of royalty. In 1886 Letters Patent were granted to B., B., and S. for "Improvements in arrangements and mechanism to facilitate the rapid application of type representing late news or matter to and the printing of the same by newspaper printing machines," and in 1888 Letters Patent were granted to the same persons for improvements relating to the same class of machinery and having a like object. The first-mentioned Patent became vested in a firm of T..G., & Co., who also became equitably entitled to the 1888 Patent. In November, 1897, H. & Co. presented a Petition to the Board of Trade for an Order for the grant of a Compulsory Licence under the Patents, and the Petition was heard before a Referee appointed by the Board of Trade. One of the Patentees had been served but did not appear. It appeared from the evidence that T., G., & Co. had granted licences to newspapers

COMPULSORY LICENSE-continued.

in various towns, but for Manchester and district they had granted an exclusive licence to use the inventions to an evening paper with which they had certain commercial relations. The Petitioners were the owners of another evening newspaper in Manchester, and alleged that, by reason of the default of the Patentees to grant licences on reasonable terms, the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the inventions could not be supplied. T., G., & Co. had refused to grant a licence to the Petitioners owing to the contract with their exclusive licensee. It was contended for the Petitioners that whether the public formed of the persons who wished to use the invention, or the public constituted by the readers of the Petitioners' newspaper, were regarded, the reasonable require ments of the public could not be supplied. For the Respondents, it was contended that, as regards the first class, the evidence only showed an individual complaint on the part of the Petitioners, and that, as regards the second class, the benefit of the invention was open to the members of it, since they could obtain the benefit by purchasing the newspaper licensed by the Respondents. The highest royalty charged by the Respondents had been £15 per machine. The Referee having reported to the Board of Trade, an order was made for the grant by the Patentees (which expression included the members of the firm of T., G., & Co.) to the Petitioners of a license to use the inventions claimed in the Patents at a royalty of £20 per machine. HULTON AND BLEAKLEY'S PETITION, p. 749. 8. Meaning of "Public." HULTON AND BLEAKLEY'S PETITION, p. 749. 9. On the hearing of a Petition for the grant of a Compulsory Licence, the Petitioners begin. HULTON AND BLEAKLEY'S PETITION, p. 752.

CORPORATION.

A corporation cannot appear in person an l must appear by Counsel in the High Court, per ROMER, J. PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. WEST LONDON RUBBER AND TYRE Co., LD., p. 129.

COSTS.

1. Threats action dismissed without. TEMLER v. H. STEVENSON AND SONS; TEMLER. THE ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT FUR CARTONNAGEN INDUSTRIE, p. 31.

2. Higher scale.-Higher scale costs allowed.

SMOKELESS POWDER CO., LD., p. 325.

HEIDEMANN v. THE

3. Costs as to issues of validity granted as between solicitor and client. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND OTHERS. THE NEW IXION TYRE AND CYCLE Co., LD., p. 404.

4. Special order as to costs.-Plaintiffs allowed two thirds of the general

costs of the action and Defendants allowed one third where both parties were partially successful. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND OTHERS. THE NEW IXION TYRE AND CYCLE CO., LD., p. 404. 5. An inquiry as to damages having been directed, the Plaintiffs were given the costs up to the date of a letter in which the Defendants had offered to pay the sum which was subsequently awarded, but ordered to pay Defendants' costs subsequent to that date. PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD., . THE PUNCTURE PROOF PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., p. 408.

COSTS-continued.

6. Where a petition for a compulsory license is dismissed there is no jurisdiction to award costs, per the REFEREE (WALLACE, Q.C.). THE CONTINENTAL GAS GLUHLICHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT (METEOR) PETITION, p. 731.

DAMAGES, INQUIRY AS TO. See also COSTS, No. 5.

1. Where the Plaintiffs were licensors they were held entitled only to damages on the basis of such orders as would have gone to the licensees from whom the Plaintiffs would have been entitled to royalties.-Action for infringement.-Inquiry as to damages.-Measure of damages.-Costs. An inquiry as to damages having been ordered on a judgmeut by consent in an action for infringement of a patent relating to bicycle tyres, and the Master having made his certificate, the Defendants moved to reduce the damages found by the report. They contended that the evidence showed that the damages ought not to be assessed on the basis that the orders given to them for tyres would have gone to the Plaintiffs, inasmuch as the infringing tyres had been bought for second-grade bicycles, and that the Plaintiffs' tyres would not have been fitted to such machines, but that the Plaintiffs were only entitled to damages on the basis that the orders would have gone to the licensees of the Plaintiffs, from whom the Plaintiffs would have been entitled to royalties. Held, that the contention of the Defendants was correct, and that the damages must be reduced accordingly. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. THE PUNCTURE PROOF PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., p. 405.

2. Inquiry as to not granted where the Defendants had not been working. CASTNER-KELLNER ALKALI CO., LD. v. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LD., p. 662.

DELAY. See INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, No. 3.

DISCLAIMER.

What is. See DELLWIK'S PATENT, p. 682.

DISCONFORMITY. See VARIANCE.

EVIDENCE.

1. Cross-examination by leave before the Court of Appeal. SACCHARIN CORPORATION, LD. v. THE CHEMICAL AND DRUGS CO., LD., p. 53.

2. Evidence tendered by Respondent to discredit one of Petitioner's witnesses on a collateral matter rejected.-Patents.-Petition for revocation of two patents.-Want of novelty.-Anticipation by prior user.-Admissibility of evidence.-Patents revoked, subject as to one to disclaimer. In 1887 and 1889, Letters Patent were granted to H., which related to "Improvements in sifting machines." In 1897, a petition was presented for the revocation of both these patents, on the ground that they were invalid, the Petitioner alleging that both inventions had been anticipated by prior user at M. Mill. R., the principal witness for the Petitioner, asserted that he had used