Page images

INFRINGEMENT—continued. 11. The first claim in the Specification of a patent for improve

ments in adjusting driving chains for bicycles held to be for a combination and not to have been infringed.—OSMONDS, LD. v. THE BALMORAL CYCLE CO., LD., p. 505.

12. A patent for improvements in rubber stamps held not to have

been infringed.-Reference to English patent on goods imported from America.-Damages.-Costs. In 1892, a patent was granted to B., an American, for “Improvements in rubber stamps," and a patent for a similar invention was granted to him in America. L. sold certain rubber stamps which he imported from America, where he obtained them from H. These stamps bore, by arrangement between B. and H., the following :-“ Licensed Buck's Patent”; “Made in “ America”; “Patented in U.S.”; and “Patented in England." The owners of B.'s English patent brought an action against L. to restrain him from infringing their patents and from selling stamps inscribed “ Buck’s Patent,” or with any other words leading to the belief that the stamps were made under their patent, and they claimed an account of profits.--Held, that the Defendant's stamps were not infringements, and that on the Defendant undertaking in future to use words showing that the American patent was alone referred to, no injunction would be awarded ; that no case of passing off had been made out by the Plaintiffs, but that the Plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the use by the Defendant in the past of the words complained of, which damages were assessed by the Judge at 40s. A special order as to costs was made. PNEUMATIC RUBBER STAMP Co. v. LINDNER, p. 525.

13. A patent for improvement in or connected with cases or covers

for the chains or gear of velocipedes held to have been infringed.-Patent held to be infringed.-Injunction granted. In 1893 a patent was granted for “ Improvements in or connected with

cases or covers for the chains or gear of velocipedes.” In 1897 a Company, in whom the patent had become vested, commenced an action for infringement of the same. At the trial, the only question substantially contested was that of infringement. The Patentees' first claim (which was one of those alleged to be infringed) was for A case or cover for the chain or gear of velocipedes, composed of a " frame, covering the inner part of the chain gear, mounted on the “ bottom stay tube, and having upper and lower longitudinal guides “ in combination with an outer case or cover divided transversely, " and adapted to take into and slide endwise upon such fixed guides, “ to cover the outer parts of the gear, all substantially as and for the

purposes herein set forth.”' The Defendant's gear case consisted also of two parts—one a frame almost identical with the frame described in the Specification, and the other part consisting of a cover divided into parts, but divided longitudinally and not transversely. In attaching this cover to the frame there was a certain amount of sliding along the grooves on the short vertical edges of the frame. Gear cases in parts were old, but not gear cases which could be removed from the velocipede without disturbing any of the parts of the velocipede.-Held, that the Defendants had taken the Plaintiffs' frame and had also in substance taken the Plaintiffs' cover, and had consequently infringed their combination. The Plaintiffs



were granted the usual relief, but execution, except as regards the injunction, was stayed in the event of an appeal within a fortnight. PRESTO GEAR CASE AND COMPONENTS Co., LD. v. SIMPLEX GEAR

CASE Co., LD., p. 635. 14. A patent for an improved electrolytic apparatus for producing caustic

soda or caustic potash held to have been infringed. CASTNERKELLNER ALKALI Co., LD. V. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, LD., p. 645. 15. A patent for an improvement in water closets or water closet

basins held not to have been infringed. - Action for infringement.--Construction of Specification.- Anticipation.Action dis. missed. In 1893, Letters Patent were granted to A. for “An “improvement in water closets or water closet basins," and in 1897 A. commenced an action for infringement of the patent against P. and others. The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged anticipation (inter alia) by the Specification of F.'s patent of 1886.Held, that the essential part of the Plaintiff's invention was an inclined pipe which the alleged infringement did not possess, and that therefore the Defendants had not infringed ; also that A.'s patent was anticipated by F.'s Specification. ALLEN V. ABRAHAM PYATT & CO. AND ANOTHER, p. 723.



INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 1. Injunction refused.-Action for infringement. Motion for inter

locutory injunction.-Practice in case of recently granted patents. The Plaintiffs, as owners of a patent of 1893, the validity of which had not been established by legal process, brought an action for infringement, and moved for an interlocutory injunction. The Defendants had advertised, but had not begun to sell any of the alleged infringing articles at the commencement of the action. In opposition to the motion, they challenged the validity of the patent on the ground of anticipation by matters of common knowledge and by a prior patent.--Held, that an injunction ought not to be granted on Defendants undertaking to keep an account of their sales. HOLOPHANE, LD., O'CLERY, AND DAVIS v. O. BEREND & Co., LD.,

P. 18.

2. Practice in case of recently granted patent.—“The rule as I under

stand it is this :—that where the proprietor of recently granted Letters Patent, the validity of which has not been established by legal process, seeks an injunction against an alleged infringer, the Court declines to interfere by interlocutory injuction and leaves the Patentee to establish the validity by formal proceedings ;” per KEKEWICH, J. HOLOPHANE LD., O'CLERY, AND Davis v. *o.

BEREND & Co., LD., p. 19. 3. Injunction refused on the ground of delay, no action having been

brought until a year after the infringement complained of came to the Plaintiffs' knowledge. Costs to be costs in the action. ALUMINIUM Co. v.DOMEIERE AND ELECTRO-CHEMISCHE WERKE ACTIENGESELLSCHAFT, p. 32.

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION-continued. 4. Interlocutory injunction refused the validity of the patent being

in dispute.-Action for infringement. Votion for interlocutory injunction. - Motion dismissed. Appeal. - Cross-eramination. Appeal dismissed. The S. Corporation, Ld., being the owners of several Letters Patent relating to the manufacture of saccharin, commenced an action for infringement of the same against the C. and D. Company, Ld., and moved for an interlocutory injunction. The motion was dismissed on the ground that the validity of the patent was in dispute. The Plaintiffs appealed, and, in the course of arguments on the appeal, applied for leave to cross-examine one of the secretaries of the Defendant Company, who had made an affidavit, on the ground that it was evasive. Cross examination was allowed (as an exceptional case) before the Court, by its leave. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. Affidavits made on information and belief must show what the sources of information are. THE SACCHARIN CORPORATION, LD. 1. THE CHEMICAL AND DRUGS Co., LD., p. 53.



No. 2.


1. Application of old mechanical contrivance to produce new and

useful results. “It by no means follows that a patent is bad because “ an old well-known mechanical contrivance has been brought into

use by a Patentee. If it were so, very few patents at the present

day could be upheld. We think the law upon this subject may “ be stated thus :-Although there cannot be a valid patent for a “ well-known mechanical contrivance merely, when it is applied in a

manner, or to a purpose, which is not quite the same, but is analogous to the manner, or the purpose, in or to which it has hitherto been “notoriously applied (we quote here the words of Lord Westbury in Harwood v. The Great Northern Railway Company, and the same · will be found again repeated by the House of Lords in the case of Morgan v. Windover, 7th Reports of Patent Cases 131), yet there “ may be a valid patent, although well-known mechanical contrivances ' are used, if they are applied in a manner, or to a purpose, to which "they have not been hitherto applied, and which new application “ results in a new and useful article not theretofore attained. In the “ first case there is no room for invention; that is, there is what is “ called no subject matter. In the second there is room for invention; “ and if the Court comes to the conclusion that there has been inven“ tion in what has been done, then there is good subject matter, and it “ is no answer to say that an old well-known mechanical contrivance " has been used in bringing about the novel and useful result attained. “ If what the Plaintiff has claimed by his patent is merely the user of

a well-known mechanical contrivance, in a well-known manner, for

a well-known purpose, then, of course, the patent is invalid, and Longbottom v. Shaw, 8th Reports of Patent Cases, page 338, is a good

example of this. There will be found in that case a statement by “Lord Herschell as to what does and does not constitute evidence of “invention, which has peculiar application to this case, and is strongly " in favour of the Plaintiff upon the facts established in this case”; per A. L. SMITH, L.J. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, p. 48.

[ocr errors]


2. Pith and marrow of, held to have been taken. GORMULLY AND JEFFERY

AND ANOTHER, p. 245.

LICENSE. See also ROYALTY and COMPULSORY LICENSE. 1. Revocability of License. Parol license held to be revocable

and revoked.--Action for infringement.-Alleged license.Revocability of license. C., being the Patentee and owner of an invention, entered into the employ of L. under an arrangement whereby I. purchased C.'s stock of the patented goods, and was to be entitled to make and sell the patented articles. C. subsequently left L.'s employ, and commenced an action for infringement of the patent against L., and a second action also against P., who claimed to be the assignee of Li's business. On behalf of L. and P., it was contended that C. had granted an irrevocable license to manufacture and sell the patented articles.Held, that so far as the license to L. was by parol, it was prima facie revocable, and was in fact intended to be revocable, and that the documentary evidence confirmed this view, and that C. having revoked the license, L. and P. must be restrained from infringing the patent. COPPIN v. LLOYD ; COPPIN v. PALMER,

p. 373.

2. License held void against a Company who had previously

agreed with the proprietor of the patent for an assignment of the goodwill of the business and the patent; an assignment having been executed subsequent to the license.Patent.--Agreement to assign.-License. -Priority.--Notice.-Consideration.-Appeal.-Putents, &c. Act, 1883, Sections 23 and 87. W., being the registered proprietor of certain Letters Patent, and being interested in a Company, in June 1896, entered into an agreement with the Company, by which the Company were to take over the goodwill of a certain business, and also the Letters Patent and other property. Provision was made for payment for certain stockin-trade." It was also agreed (although this did not appear in the written agreement) that the Company should issue to W. certain shares. In September 1897, W. granted to S. and others a license under the Letters Patent, and notification of this license was entered on the Register of Patents before any notification of the agreement of June 1896 was entered on the Register. Subsequent to such notifications, W. assigned the Letters Patent to the Company, W. receiving a sum of 6501. on such assignment in addition to the shares. The Company commenced an action against S. and the other licensees and their assignees, claiming that the said license was void against them, the Company, and for an injunction. The Defendants disputed the Plaintiffs' title and right to priority, and alleged that the agreement of June 1896 had at the date of the license been abandoned, and that the subsequent assignment was not made in pursuance thereof.-Held, at the trial, that the Defendants had, at the date of the license, express notice of the agreement previously entered into by W. with the Company ; that the Defendants took their license subject to the rights of the Company under that agreement; that the agreement was an enforceable one, notwithstanding that the agreement as to the shares was not expressed in it; that the agreement had not at the date of the license been abandoned ; that


the assignment to the Plaintiffs was made in pursuance of the agreement; and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the license was void against them, an injunction, and costs. The Defendants appealed. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. Sections 23 and 87 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, considered. NEW IXION TYRE AND CYCLE Co., LD. V. SPILSBURY AND OTHERS, p. 380, 567.


A patent for improvements in a certain portion of web printing

and folding machines held to be invalid for want of novelty.Action for infringement.- Validity.-Novelty.Prior publication.Prior user-Costs.. In 1885, Letters Patent were granted for improvements in a certain portion of web printing and folding machines, and in 1896 the proprietors of these Letters Patent commenced an action against a firm for infringement of the same, the particular part alleged to be infringed being the longitudinal folding apparatus. The Defendants denied infringement and validity, alleging want of subject matter and want of novelty by reason of the prior publication of the invention in several Specifications and also prior publication by the importation of a machine containing the mechanism in question, which machine was alleged to have been seen by divers persons and to have been used in the United Kingdom before the date of the said Letters Patent. The Plaintiffs contended that if the machine was seen, it was seen under a pledge of confidence, and that any user of it was merely for the purpose of testing.--Held, that the Letters Patent were invalid for want of novelty, machines embodying the invention having been sold and used in the United Kingdom before the date of the application for the patent. HOE & Co. v. FOSTER AND SONS, p. 573.

PATENTS, &C. ACT, 1883.
Section 18 (ss. 9). WILLIAM E. PECK & Co. v. HINDES, LD., p. 113.

OWEN'S PATENT, p. 755.
Section 19. OWEN'S PATENT, p. 755.



OTHERS, p. 380, 567. Section 26 (4) c. NORWOOD'S PATENT (No. 2), p. 98. Section 32. TEMLER v. H. STEVENSON AND SONS ; TEMLER v. THE



OTHERS, p. 380, 567.

PATENTS, &C. ACT, 1888.


p. 259.

Section 5. OWEN'S PATENT, p. 755.

« PreviousContinue »