EVIDENCE-continued. the inventions at M. Mill by alterations he had there made in a sifter, and, in cross-examination, stated that he came to do so from having seen sifters so altered at two other mills. Evidence was tendered by the Respondent to show that no such sifters as alleged by R. had been at these two other mills; this evidence was objected to on behalf of the Petitioner. Held, that evidence to contradict R.'s answers in cross-examination as to what he had seen at the two other mills was inadmissible, and that the prior user at M. Mill had been established. Both patents were accordingly revoked; but in the case of the earlier patent only if the Respondent did not obtain leave to amend the patent by disclaimer, as in Deeley v. Perkes, 13 R.P.C. 581. HAGGENMACHER'S PATENTS, p. 431. EXPERIMENTAL USER. What is. See HOE & Co. v. FOSTER AND SONS, p. 579. GRANT OF PATENT, OPPOSITION TO. 1. Application to re-hear refused.-Opposition to grant on the ground that the invention had been patented on application of prior date.-Application to re-open the case after it had been decided on appeal, on the ground that the Opponent had subsequently withdrawn his opposition, refused.-Grounds on which a case will be ordered to be re-heard. THOMAS AND PREVOST'S APPLICATION FOR A PATENT, p. 257. 2. Grounds on which a case will be ordered to be re-heard." That "there is power to re-open under special circumstances I have no "doubt. If there were a fraud, a serious mistake, or miscarriage, I "think that there would be power to direct a re-hearing, in order to "see whether justice demanded that another conclusion should be "arrived at; but the only ground put before me in the present case is "that the Opponent has withdrawn his opposition, and is willing to "come forward and say that he now desires that the patent should go. "I think it would be a very dangerous thing to allow that that should "be treated as a sufficient ground"; per SIR R. FINLAY, S.G. THOMAS AND PREVOST'S APPLICATION FOR A PATENT, p. 258. 3. Grant allowed. Opposition on the ground that the Complete Specification described an invention other than that described in the Provisional, failing.-Opposition to grant of Patent on the ground that the Complete Specification describes or claims an invention other than that described in the Provisional Specification, and that such other invention forms the subject of an application made by the Opponent, in the interval between the leaving of the Provisional Specification and the leaving of the Complete Specification. Held, by the Comptroller, that the Complete Specification did not describe an invention other than that described in the Provisional Specification. Held on appeal, by the Law Officer, that the Comptroller's decision be affirmed. MILLAR AND MILLER'S APPLICATION, p. 718. INFRINGEMENT. 1. Action for infringement of a patent for pneumatic tyres. Infringement not found.-Action for infringement of three patents. One only relied on at the trial.-Validity not contested.— INFRINGEMENT-continued. Infringement not found.-Judgment for Defendants, with costs, and certificate that the Particulars of Objections to the two abandoned patents were reasonable and proper. The P. Company brought an action against the T. Company for infringement of three patents for improvements in pneumatic tyres, one being a patent by B. for a tyre held to consist (inter alia) of an inner inflatable tube. At the trial, the question resolved itself into one of infringement of this patent, the case as to the other two patents being abandoned by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants had no inner inflatable tube, but the Plaintiffs contended that part of the Defendants' construction was equivalent to an inner inflatable tube.-Held, at the trial, that the Defendants had not infringed, and judgment was given for them, with costs. The Plaintiffs appealed. Held, by the MASTER OF THE ROLLS and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J., that the inner inflatable tube was of the essence of B.'s invention, and that the Defendants had not infringed. Held, by RIGBY, L.J., that the Defendants had taken the combination described in B.'s first claim, and therefore had infringed. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD. v. THE TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON HEATON, LD., AND OTHERS, p. 74, 236. 2. Patents for the improvement of illuminant appliances for burners held to have been infringed, and that the Defendants were carrying on systematically the business of infringers.-Nonappearance of Defendant at trial.-Application to set aside judgment and re-enter case in List.-Judgment set aside.-New trial.-Infringement.-Injunction granted.-Costs.-Aiding and abetting infringement. The owners of two patents brought an action for infringement against several Defendants and, on the case coming on for trial, obtained a judgment, none of the Defendants appearing. Subsequently one Defendant obtained an order to set aside the judgment on the ground of surprise, and a fresh trial took place. The validity of the patents was not disputed.-Held, that the Defendant had infringed, and judgment was given for the Plaintiffs, with costs. THE INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT CO., LD. v. THE NEW INCANDESCENT MANTLE CO., J. HERBERT, DE TOSSEL, AND LEFROY, p. 81. 3. Aiding and abetting infringement, per MATHEW, J. "In the most "restricted sense, to aid and abet may not constitute infringement; "but if a business of infringing is carried on, the aiding and abetting "in that sense will be sufficient." THE INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT Co., LD. v. THE NEW INCANDESCENT MANTLE Co., J. HERBERT, DE TOSSEL, AND LEFROY, p. 83. See also post, No. 10. 4 A patented process for the manufacture of artificial musk held to be infringed.-Chemical process.-Defendant arriving at the same result by substantially the same methods, but with some differences. In an action for infringement of two patents for producing artificial musk (one of which was abandoned at the trial), it was proved that the Defendant produced the same result as the Plaintiffs' process described in the Specification of the patent relied on by them at the trial, and by a process which was substantially the same, although some of the steps were different, and some of the intermediate products different.-Held, that the Defendant had infringed, and an injunction was granted, with costs, except that the Defendant was held entitled to the costs so far as the abandoned INFRINGEMENT-continued. patent was concerned. A certificate of the validity of their other patent was given to the Plaintiffs, and a certificate was given to the Defendant that his Particulars of Objections to the abandoned patent were reasonable and proper. FABRIQUES DE PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN, &C. v. CASPERS, p. 94. 5. Action for infringement of patent for improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes in wheels for cycles. Infringement found,-Action for infringement against Limited Company--Agent applying to be heard for Company.-Infringement found. The P. Company, as owners of a patent granted to W. (the validity of which was established in a previous action), brought an action for infringement against the L. Company. On the action coming on for trial, R. appeared as agent of the L. Company for the purpose of conducting their defence. The Judge ruled that he was unable to do so, and the trial was postponed to enable the L. Company to instruct Counsel. On the action coming on again for trial, the only defence relied upon was non-infringement, all other defences having been withdrawn.-Held, that the L. Company had infringed, and judgment was given for the Plaintiffs, with solicitor and client costs, such costs to include the costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial. PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. WEST LONDON RUBBER AND TYRE Co., LD, p. 129. 6. A patent for improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims for cycles held to have been infringed. Injunction granted.Validity.-Disconformity.-Anticipation.-Patent upheld.-Injunction granted. In 1890, Letters Patent were granted to W. for "Improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of wheels. "for cycles and other light vehicles." The Pneumatic Tyre Company, in whom this patent had become vested, brought an action for infringement against E. and S., trading as the L. Company. The Defendants, in addition to special defences and counterclaims, denied infringement, novelty, utility, subject-matter, and that W. was the first inventor, and alleged disconformity. They alleged (inter alia) anticipation by a Specification of Burton and Shaw (No. 1412 of 1871) for " Improvements in wheels for traction engines." Prior to the commencement of the action, W.'s patent had been held valid in an action of The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. Casswell, in which the question of disconformity had been decided; and, before trial, the same question had been decided in favour of the patent in The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. The East London Rubber Company, Ld.-Held, that the evidence not having established different findings to those in the previous actions, the decisions as to disconformity were binding on the Court, and must be followed; also that the patent had not been anticipated, and was good, and had been infringed. Judgment was given for the Plaintiffs upon the claim and counterclaims. A stay, except as to the injunction, was granted on conditions. PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND ANOTHER v. LEICESTER PNEUMATIC TYRE AND AUTOMATIC VALVE CO., p. 159. 7. A centrifugal cream separator combining conical plates and a rotating drum held to have been infringed by an apparatus having a cylindrical block with radial passages drilled therein. Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification. INFRINGEMENT-continued. Infringement.-Mechanical equivalents. This action was for the infringement of a patent relating to the separation of cream from milk. The claim was for "In centrifugal separators or creamers "the combination of the conical plates c1 with the rotating drum or "bowl a substantially as described." The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged the invalidity of the patent on the grounds of want of novelty and subject-matter, and anticipation; but, at the trial, these issues were abandoned, and the only question was infringement. The Defendants' apparatus had not conical plates, but a cylindrical block with inclined radial passages drilled therein. -Held, that the Plaintiffs' invention was for dividing the milk into layers by separate conical plates, and that the Defendants did not infringe by mechanical equivalents. The Plaintiffs appealed.-Held, that according to the true construction of the Specification, the claim was not for separate conical plates simply, but for separate conical plates fastened rigidly by screws or otherwise into one solid mass or block; that the Defendants had infringed; and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to relief. AKTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR v. DAIRY OUTFIT Co., p. 327. 8. A patent for improvements in rubber tyres and metal rims or felloes of wheels for cycles or other light vehicles held not to have been infringed, but a patent for improvements in tyres or rims for cycles or other vehicles held to be infringed.-Action for infringement of two patents.-Validity.Infringement. - Plaintiffs partly successful.-Costs. In 1890, a patent was granted to W. for "Improvements in rubber tyres and "metal rims or felloes of wheels for cycle or other light vehicles." In the same year a patent was granted to B. for "Improvements in "tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles." In 1897, the D. P. T. Company, in whom both the patents had become vested, commenced an action against the N. I. T. Company for infringement of both patents. The Defendants denied infringement and also the validity of both patents. Before the trial, B.'s patent had been upheld and construed by the House of Lords (The North British Rubber Company, Ld. v. The Gormully and Jeffery Manufacturing Company, 15 R.P.C. 245), by whom it was held that the first claim was for the method described in the Specification and any method substantially the same of connecting the outer cover of a tyre with the rim so that the ends of the cover are gripped. W.'s patent had before the trial been upheld and construed in several actions, and in one of them (The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. The East London Rubber Company, 14 R.P.C. 573) by the Court of Appeal, by whom it was held that the feature of the invention consisted in an arrangement in which an arched tyre was stretched over a convex surface and held in position by wires in its edges without any other support or fastening. Two tyres were complained of as infringements by the Plaintiffs, both of them being alleged to infringe B.'s patent, and one of them only being alleged at the trial to infringe W.'s patent. In each there was a rubber tyre with metal bands in pockets at the edges of it; these bands overlapped longitudinally, but the ends were not fastened together. The rim in each case was nearly flat at the bottom, and the bands when lying side by side in the rim met or slightly overlapped. In the alleged infringement of both patents (J.H.,) the edges of the rim were turned outwards to some extent, but in the other alleged infringement (J.H.,) the edges were INFRINGEMENT-continued. somewhat inturned, and in the latter case the pockets were looser than in the former case. The position and action of the bands when the tyres were inflated were in controversy.-- Held, that the questions as to the validity of the patents were concluded as regards this Court by the judgments in the previous actions on the patents, that J.H., was an infringement of B.'s patent, but that J.H., was not an infringement of either of the patents. A special order was made as to costs, and the costs so far as referring to the validity of either patent were directed to be taxed as between solicitor and client. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO., LD., AND OTHERS v. The New IXION TYRE AND CYCLE Co., LD., p. 389. 9. Injunction refused where Defendants admitted infringement before action brought and in their defence; and Plaintiff failed to show any intention on Defendants' part to commit further infringements.-Action for infringement.-Infringement admitted before action and by Defence.-Offer of damages.-Payment into Court.-Costs. H. wrote to the C. Company, complaining of infringement of his patent, and a correspondence ensued. The C. Company admitted certain infringements in 1893 and 1895, stating that they had acted without knowledge of the patent. H. offered to accept a prompt payment of 1507. on the Company undertaking to publish an apology. The Company sent a cheque for 1507., but declined to make an apology. The cheque was returned by Plaintiff's solicitors, and an action for infringement was commenced. The Defendants paid 1507. into Court, which the Plaintiff accepted in satisfaction of his claim for damages. The action came on upon motion for judgment.-Held, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction, as he had not proved that the Defendants intended to commit any further infringement; that no costs ought to be given down to the time when the Plaintiff accepted the 150/. in satisfaction of damages, and that Plaintiff must pay the Defendants' costs subsequent to that date. HUDSON. THE CHATTERIS ENGINEERING WORKS CO., p. 438. 10. A patent for an invention for using zinc powder to prevent corrosion in steam boilers held to have been infringed by selling a powder with instructions to use it in such a way as to infringe the patent.-Infringement denied.-Validity of patent denied.-Sale of article to be used in infringement of a patent. A Patentee of an invention for using zinc powder to prevent corrosion in steam boilers appointed S. his agent. S. sold zinc powder, with printed directions for use headed "Innes' Patent Metallic Zinc." Subsequently the agency was determined, but S. continued to sell zinc powder with the same directions, except that the words "Innes' "Patent were struck through in red ink. The Patentee brought an action against S. for infringement. S. denied infringement, and alleged that the patent had been anticipated and was invalid.-Held, that the patent had not been anticipated, and that S. had infringed, and an injunction was granted to restrain S. from selling powdered zinc with an invitation to his purchasers to use it so as to infringe the patent. TOWNSEND. HAWARTH distinguished. SHORT AND BEAL, p. 449. 16747-2 INNES . C 2 |