SPECIFICATION, SUFFICIENCY OF-continued.

"form, as hereabove stated and described, a direct communication of "the water closet seat with the main drain." The Patentee brought an action for infringement, in which the Defendants alleged (inter alia) non-infringement, want of subject-matter, and want of novelty. The Plaintiff alleged that his invention consisted in a combination of pipes performing a function not performed by the parts separately.Held, at the trial, that the claim was for the use of the pipes in combination, that it was useful, but that the patent was invalid for want of subject-matter, since the combination performed no function not performed by the parts separately, which functions so performed were not novel, and that even if this were not so, the combination was not novel. The action was dismissed, with costs. The Plaintiff appealed. The appeal was dismissed with costs. ALLEN v. OATES AND GREEN, LD., pp. 298, 744.

3. A patent for the manufacture of dye-stuffs held to be invalid on the ground of insufficiency of the description of one of the processes given by way of example in the Specification.Action for infringement of two patents.-Case abandoned as to one in course of trial.-Validity.-Sufficiency of Specification.—Infringement.-Costs.-Appeal. The B. Company, as owners of two patents for the manufacture and production of dye-stuffs, brought an action for infringement thereof against the C. Company and W., claiming the usual relief. The Defendants did not dispute the validity of the first patent, but they denied infringement thereof, and also of the second patent, and they denied the validity of this patent on various grounds set forth in their Particulars of Objections, one being that it was anticipated by the previous Specification of M. (the subject of the action of Monnet v. Beck). In the course of the trial they were allowed to amend their Particulars by introducing a fresh objectionthat one of the processes described in the Specification, by way of example, was insufficiently described. In the course of the trial the Plaintiffs abandoned their case on the first patent.-Held, at the trial, that the Plaintiffs' second patent was not anticipated by M.'s patent, but that it was invalid on the ground of insufficiency of the description of one of the processes given by way of example in the Specification. Judgment was given for the Defendants in respect of the first patent and on the issue as to the validity of the second patent, and for the Plaintiffs on the issue of infringement of the second patent. A special Order was made as to costs. The Plaintiffs appealed on the finding of insufficiency of description.-Held, that the finding was right, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK . LA SOCIÉTÉ CHIMIQUE DES USINES Du Rhône and WILSON, p. 359.

STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES.

The 4th section does not apply to an action brought by a Patentee which failed on the ground that the patent was invalid on account of one of the claims in the Specification being bad. WILLIAM E. PECK & Co. v. HINDES, LD., p. 113.

SUBJECT-MATTER.

1. A Specification of a patent for a method of cutting necktie linings with a revolving knife held not to show good subjectmatter.-Action for Infringement.—Subject-matter.-Invention.

16747-2

D 2

SUBJECT-MATTER-continued.

This was an action for infringement of a patent for a method of cutting, at one operation, necktie linings by means of a revolving band-knife, the material being clamped firmly between two templets of identical form. Held, at the trial, that the invention claimed was not sufficient to form the subject-matter of a patent, being merely the application of the use of a band-knife, in its ordinary function as a cutter of piles of substances, by applying it to necktie linings, when such linings to be cut were clamped together with guides. The action was therefore dismissed. Held, on appeal, by LINDLEY, M.R., and RIGBY, L.J. (VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J., dissenting), that the decision of ROMER, J., was correct; and the appeal was dismissed, with costs. DREDGE v. PARNELL, p. 84.

2. A patent for improvements in securing cleats on bulb angles, Z-frames, plain angle-irons and the like held to be void for want of subject-matter having regard to prior knowledge. -Action for infringement.-Anticipation.-Utility.—Subject-matter. -Exercise of inventive faculty. R., the grantee of a patent for improvements in securing cleats on bulb angles, Z-frames, plain angle-irons, and the like, brought an action, for infringement thereof, against P. and Co. At the trial, P. and Co. contended :—(1) That the patent was anticipated by what they had themselves done prior to the date thereof; (2) that there was no utility in the invention, as it had never been put into practice; (3) that the patent was void for want of subject-matter.-Held, that anticipation was not proved, that want of utility was not established, but that, having regard to prior knowledge, the patent was void for want of subject-matter, and judgment was accordingly given for the Defendants. ROCKLIFFE v. PRIESTMAN & CO., p. 155.

3. Patent for combination held valid, although each part of the combination had been anticipated.-Infringement.-Validity of patent for a combination.-Alleged anticipation by previous patents. -Order for inspection of Defendants' works to ascertain whether infringement had taken place. In 1891, W. obtained a patent for an improvement in apparatus for concentrating sulphuric acid, consisting of a chamber divided into two parts by an iron floor arranged in steps, in the lower part of which a series of open beakers containing the acid were exposed to the action of heat, the acid being conveyed from the top of each beaker to the bottom of the next by a loose glass tube, thus securing a constant circulation, and being gradually concentrated as it passed through the beakers, and delivered from the lowest beaker in a concentrated state. The smoke and products of combustion were confined to the lower chamber, and prevented from contaminating the acid, by the iron floor, and the acid fumes in the upper chamber were conveyed to a condenser. None of the parts of which the combination was composed was new, each having been anticipated by previous patents; but the combination was novel, and the result was greater convenience, economy, and efficiency. In 1896, the Defendants erected at Arklow apparatus for concentrating sulphuric acid, practically similar to that of the Plaintiff. An action was brought for infringement.-Held, that although each part of the Plaintiff's combination had been anticipated, the combination was novel and useful, and showed invention, and that he was entitled to an injunction, WEBB v. KYNOCH & Co., LD., p. 269.

SUBJECT-MATTER-continued.

66

66

4. Combination claim. "It is not to be denied that you may have a valid "patent for machinery producing an old result, by means of subsidiary parts, none of which is in itself new, provided the combination is an "invention, that is, is the result of independent thought, ingenuity, "and skill, producing in a distinctive form a more efficient result, rejecting what is bad or useless in former attempts, retaining what "is useful, and uniting them all into an apparatus which, taken as a "whole, is novel. The Plaintiff here claims to sustain his patent for "an improvement in apparatus for concentrating sulphuric acid, and I "think he has sustained his claim, and that I am bound to decide in "his favour," per PORTER, M. R. Ir. WEBB v. KYNOCH & Co., LD., p. 290.

5. Patent for combination held by majority of Irish Court of Appeal to be valid, although each part of the combination had been anticipated.-Infringement.-Validity of patent for a combination.-Alleged anticipation by previous patents.-Sufficiency of Patentee's claim. In 1891, W. obtained a patent for "An improve"ment in apparatus for concentrating sulphuric acid," consisting of a chamber divided into two parts by an iron floor arranged in steps, in the lower part of which a series of open beakers containing the acid were exposed to the action of heat, the acid being conveyed from the top of each beaker to the bottom of the next by a loose glass tube, thus securing a constant circulation, and being gradually concentrated as it passed through the beakers, and delivered from the lowest beaker in a concentrated state. The smoke and products of combustion were confined to the lower chamber, and prevented from contaminating the acid, by the iron floor, and the acid fumes in the upper chamber were conveyed to a condenser. None of the parts of which the combination was composed was new, each having been anticipated by previous patents; but the combination was novel, and the result was greater convenience, economy, and efficiency. In 1896, the Defendants erected at Arklow apparatus for concentrating sulphuric acid, practically similar to that of the Plaintiff. An action was brought for infringement. The Plaintiff's Specification described the entire machine and the process, and his claim was "centrating sulphuric acid, a series of glass vessels placed on steps "in a heating chamber, each of these vessels being made with an "overflow spout and having placed in it a glass tube reaching down "to its bottom from the spout of the next higher vessel, arranged "and operating substantially as herein described." The Patentee did not state in his Specification that he claimed only for the combination. At the trial it was held, by the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, that although each part of the Plaintiff's combination had been anticipated, the combination was novel and useful, and showed invention, that the claim was sufficient, and that he was entitled to an injunction. The Defendants having appealed, held, by the Lord CHANCELLOR and Lord Justice HOLMES, that the judgment of the MASTER OF THE ROLLS should be affirmed; by Lord Justice FITZGIBBON and Lord Justice WALKER, that not having stated that the claim was only for WEBB V. a combination, the Specification was bad, and that the patent was invalid. The appeal was dismissed, but without costs. KYNOCH & Co., LD., p. 541.

"for con

SUBJECT-MATTER-continued.

6. Patent for a protector for the air tube of a pneumatic tyre held to be invalid for want of subject-matter.-Action for infringement.-Subject-matter.—Anticipation. This was an action for infringement of a patent for a protector for the air tube of a pneumatic tyre. The Specification described and claimed a strip or covering of skin, treated or cured in manner well understood, but not tanned as ordinary leather, placed all round the air tube so as to completely protect the same between the air tube and the outer covering of the tyre, and applied to the tyre in any convenient manner. The Defendant denied infringement and set up want of novelty, utility, and subject-matter; he also alleged insufficiency of the Complete Specification and disconformity.-Held, the Plaintiff's patent was invalid for want of subject-matter, and judgment was given for the Defendant, with costs. BRASSINGTON v. Cox, p. 502.

THREATS (ACTION TO RESTRAIN).

1. Two actions to restrain threats dismissed on the ground that the Defendants had acted bona fide, that one of the Defendants not claiming to be a patentee did not come under section 32 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, and that a patent action although abandoned had been prosecuted within the meaning of the proviso to the section.-Bona fides.-Action for infringement.Whether duly prosecuted.-Action dismissed.-Costs.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 32. A Company, being the owners of some patents relating to metal clamps for uniting certain parts of boxes of wood, cardboard, leather, and the like, and their agents, S. and Sons, issued threats against T. and his customers, alleging that T.'s clamps infringed the said patents. The Company, in October 1894, sued T. for infringement of three of these patents, but one of them was dropped out of the Statement of Claim, and the action as to one of the others was abandoned in January 1896, after re-amended Particulars of Objections had been given, and as to the remaining patent it was discontinued in April 1896, after such Particulars had been further re-amended. T., in November 1895, commenced the first of the present actions against S. and Sons, and in February 1896 commenced the second of these actions against the Company, both actions being to restrain threats.-Held, first, that as the Defendants in each action had acted bona fide in issuing the threats, no action lay against either of them, apart from Section 32 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883; secondly, that S, and Sons, not claiming to be patentees, did not come within that section; and, thirdly, that although the patent action had been discontinued, it had been prosecuted within the meaning of the proviso to the section, and that notwithstanding the abandonment of the action as to one patent before the Statement of Claim; for the threats had been founded generally on all three patents, and not in respect of any special one of them. The two actions were therefore dismissed, but without costs. TEMLER v. H. STEVENSON & SONS; TEMLER v. THE ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT FUR CARTONNAGEN INDUSTRIE, p. 24.

2. Injunction granted where only one threat.-Single threat.-Threat unjustifiable. The L. Company, being owners of a patent, wrote to B. and Co. a threatening letter in respect of certain glass vessels,

THREATS (ACTION TO RESTRAIN)-continued.

which they were in fact making for W. W. brought an action to restrain the L. Company from threatening. The L. Company, after being allowed by arrangement to inspect B. and Co.'s works, admitted that what they were doing was no infringement of their patent.Held, that the Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, or an undertaking by the Defendants not to threaten in respect of the glass vessels specified in the letter, and that the Defendants must pay the costs of the action. WEBB v. LEVINSTEIN & CO., LD., p. 78.

3. Action dismissed, the Court holding that, although the Defendants had discontinued their action for infringement, they had acted with due diligence and in good faith.Action for infringement commenced and discontinued. Due diligence. Good faith.-Statute of Monopolies.-Claim for treble damages under Section 4.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Sections 32 and 18, sub-section 9. The H. Company were the owners of two patents for hair curlers. In 1894, P. and Co. placed upon the market a hair curler which the H. Company alleged was an infringement of their patent rights. On the 10th of May 1894, the H. Company commenced an action against P. and Co. for infringement, but discontinued this action on the 18th of June 1895, on account of their having discovered that an amendment of the Specification of one of their patents, which they thought had been made, had not been, in fact, completed, and, therefore, such patent was invalid. Thereupon, P. and Co. commenced an action against the H. Company for an injunction to restrain them from threatening, to which the H. Company raised, by way of defence, the action which they had commenced and discontinued as aforesaid. The threats action came on for trial before the Judge and a Special Jury. The jury found that the threats of the H. Company to take proceedings against P. and Co. were made in good faith, and that their action against P. and Co. was commenced and prosecuted with due diligence. A question was then argued before the Judge as to whether the H. Company's action was an illegal one under the Statute of Monopolies. The Judge held that it was not, and gave judgment for the H. Company, with costs. WILLIAM E. PECK & Co. v. HINDES, LD., p. 113.

VARIANCE.

1. A patent held invalid on the ground that three figures in the drawings attached to the Complete Specification were not within the Provisional. - Action for infringement. Subjectmatter.-Alleged anticipation.-Variance.-Practice.-Certificates. This was an action for the infringement of four patents (one being not relied on at the trial) :-The first for improvements relating to the base frame of cycle saddles; the second for improvements in the boss on the pillar of the cycle; the third for improved means of adjusting the tilt of the saddle. The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged that the patents were invalid on various grounds; No. 1, on the grounds of want of novelty and subject-matter, anticipation, want of utility and insufficiency; No. 2, on the grounds of want of novelty and subject-matter, insufficiency, variance, and anticipation; and No. 3, on the grounds of anticipation, want of subject-matter, variance, and prior grant. It was held, at the trial,