In the Matter of Parsons' Patent. and the blade would not close in at the back of it. This led to a considerable loss of power. Three screw shafts were afterwards adopted with nine propellers, sufficient blade area being thus obtained to get the necessary thrust without breaking up the water. In large ships four shafts would be used. After experimenting for three years it gave 33 knots on the 5 measured mile. It had since been run at a pressure calculated to be 34 knots. The Company had a contract with the Admiralty for the construction of a torpedo destroyer. The pressure the Turbinia worked at was 175 lbs. at the engine, the usual pressure in torpedo boats, the speed of which was 24 knots. 34 knots in a boat of the size of the Turbinia would, 10 under similar conditions, rise to over 42 in a boat of the "Destroyer size. The vibration would be very slight. A speed of 28 knots could be reached in 20 seconds. In stopping the Turbinia upon an estimated speed of 30 knots, she had been brought to rest, by reversing, in 42 seconds. The engine and the boiler of the Turbinia had Turbinia had been 15 constructed by the Petitioner's firm at net cost, and no profit had been derived from them. The invention could be adapted to all vessels. The machine was also capable of doing the work of steam engines on land. The Turbinia was not protected by Letters Patent independently of the 1884 patent. The Petitioner's use of the patent was confined to electric lighting, and 20 so on. The application of the engines to marine propulsion lay within the province of the Company. Lord Kelvin.-There is a great future before steam turbines. The success of the turbine is a great step in steam navigation, one of the greatest steps since the introduction of steam navigation, nearly 100 years ago. There are 25 difficulties in its application to large vessels, but they may be overcome. William Swan (of Monkhouse, Goddard, and Co.) proved the accounts: the gross profit upon the patent, without allowing for Patentee's profit or interest on capital, was 70317. 13s. 9d. 81397. 78. 7d. would represent interest at 7 per cent. from time to time on the capital employed, thus leaving a net loss 30 upon the working of 11077. 13s. 10d. This was without allowing anything for the Patentee's time, and was irrespective of marine propulsion and the license of the Westinghouse Company. Moulton, Q.C., in summing up the Petitioner's case.-There had not been sufficient remuneration received having regard to the merit of the invention. 35 The merit was not contested by the Crown. The objection raised was that the invention had not been put into such a form as to be incapable of improvement. It could not be disputed that the original patent made the question of steam turbines and marine propulsion practicable. Excluding the marine propulsion, practically there had been no remuneration. Ordinary manufacturer's profits 40 were barely shown by the accounts even if what was made from the foreign patents, as shown in the arrangement with the Westinghouse Machine Company, were included. As to marine propulsion, the Petitioner had given three years' work and constructed two series of machines, for which he received 90007. in cash and 30,0007. in shares, and a royalty on the patents if they continued to 45 exist. The 30,000l. was not only for the original invention, but included all the deviations. Sir Richard Webster, A.G.-Other than for marine propulsion there was evidence of remuneration, as shown by the transaction with the Westinghouse Company. When it suited the Petitioner he contended that all the merit was 50 due to the 1884 patent, but when he had to deal with large sums of money he contended that they were to be apportioned to other patents than the 1884 patent. The moneys already received by the Petitioner, the shares allotted to him in the Company, together with the royalties to which he would be entitled, afforded ample remuneration. There was no ground for prolonging 55 the patent. Lord WATSON.-Their Lordships will humbly recommend Her Majesty to 5 In the Matter of Parsons' Patent. grant an extension of the term of the patent for a further period of five years. Their reasons for coming to that conclusion will be stated on a future date. Upon the 14th of May 1898, the reasons for granting the extension were stated as follows: Lord MACNAGHTEN.-On the 19th of April last, their Lordships had under their consideration an application by Mr. Charles Algernon Parsons for an extension of his patent numbered 6735 and dated the 23rd of April 1884, for "Improvements in rotary motors actuated by elastic fluid pressure and "applicable also as pumps." The invention, which is the subject of the patent, 10 is one of conspicuous merit. It has solved a problem which for a hundred years and more has exercised and baffled the ingenuity of inventors. Many persons have endeavoured to employ the velocity of steam for the purpose of causing rotary motion without the intervention of any reciprocating apparatus. no one before Mr. Parsons ever succeeded in producing a steam turbine of 15 practical utility. Mr. Parsons had his attention directed to the subject while he was a student at Cambridge, and he devoted much time and thought to it then. But it was only after prolonged research and many experiments that he was able to determine the conditions of success. Mr. Parsons states in his Specification that motors according to his invention 20 are applicable to a variety of purposes. Practically, however, up to the present time, they have been applied only to the two purposes of electric lighting and marine propulsion. For the purpose of electric lighting the invention seems to be specially adapted. In dispensing with reciprocating action Mr. Parsons gets rid of vibration. It thus becomes possible to establish electrical stations 25 in populous places, and to use the most powerful engines there without fear of being stopped by an injunction on the ground of nuisance. As regards marine propulsion, only one vessel so far has been equipped with Mr. Parsons' invention. The success of that experiment, however, has (as their Lordships were informed) induced the Admiralty to order two vessels of a 30 similar type, one of which is guaranteed to attain the speed of 35 knots per hour. Lord Kelvin, when examined as a witness, expressed his opinion in thinking that there is a great future for steam turbines, and that for some purposes Mr. Parsons' invention is likely to supersede the reciprocating type of engines. So far the case is clear. The difficulty begins when the question of remunera35 tion comes to be considered. It would not be easy, under any circumstances, to appraise the value of such an invention or to assess even approximately the amount of remuneration which it deserves. The task is not rendered lighter by the circumstance that it is impossible to measure with anything like accuracy "the profits made by the Patentee as such." If the invention had been less 40 meritorious, their Lordships would have been disposed to consider that circumstance fatal to the application, as it certainly would have been if the difficulty had been attributable to any fault on the part of the Patentee. But their Lordships are satisfied that the Patentee's accounts have been fairly kept and fairly presented, and that Mr. Parsons has given their Lordships all the 45 assistance in his power. It will be convenient, in the first place, to deal with the profits of the invention, derived from its application to purposes other than those of marine propulsion. The general account of receipts and expenditure in respect of the English patent, exclusive of its application to the purposes of marine pro50 pulsion, brings out a result showing that the total expenditure has exceeded the gross profits by the sum of 11077. 13s. 10d., after allowing interest on capital at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, but without charging anything for the Patentee's services. In regard to the foreign patents corresponding to the English patent No. 6735 of 1884, the Patentee's accounts bring out a loss of 55 2021. 48. 11d. The Belgian, German, Italian, and Swedish patents were allowed to lapse in the interval between July 1890 and December 1893, when Mr. Parsons' patent rights were in the hands of his late partners, from whom they In the Matter of Parsons' Patent. were re-purchased in December 1893, in consideration of the sum of 15007. In September 1895, Mr. Parsons sold to the Westinghouse Machine Company, of Pittsburg, the United States and Canadian patents, together with other valuable patent rights belonging to him, but reserving the right to use all the patents comprised in the sale for the purpose of marine propulsion. The 5 consideration was a lump sum of 50001. and certain royalties, in respect of which the sum of 8507. has been received. The total amount received from the sale, after deducting expenses, was the sum of 52637. 18s. 8d, of which one-fifth is attributed in the accounts to the patent No. 6735 of 1884. Even if the whole proceeds of the sale were attributed to the original patent, it 10 appears to their Lordships that the gain on the foreign patents would not counterbalance the loss on the English patent, if any reasonable allowance is to be made to the Patentee for his services. The result, so far, in a pecuniary point of view, is disappointing. Their Lordships, however, are satisfied that Mr. Parsons has done his best to push 15 his invention. Its slow progress in public favour is in accordance with all experience. New methods are not welcomed by workmen or manufacturers, or even by mechanical engineers. The greater the novelty, the greater the apathy and hostility to be overcome. The circumstances relating to the application of the patent to the purposes of 20 marine propulsion, and the results in the shape of profits attributable to that application, require a more detailed statement. In the year 1893, Mr. Parsons made numerous experiments in order to test the applicability of steam turbines for the purpose of marine propulsion. In January 1894, he granted to a Company called the Marine Steam Turbine Company, Ld., an exclusive license 25 to use for the purpose of marine propulsion, and for that purpose only, the patent No. 6735 of 1884, together with a large number of other patents belonging to him, some of which were improvements, more or less important, and some independent patents. In consideration for this license he received 90007. in fully paid-up shares in the Company, which had an issue capital of 24,0007., 30 out of a nominal capital of 25,000l., so that Mr. Parsons became interested in three-eighths of the issue capital of the Company. In order to demonstrate the effect of steam turbines, as applied to the purpose of marine propulsion, the Company built and equipped the Turbinia at a cost of about 16,000l. Mr. Parsons executed all the work for the Company at net 35 cost, and without making any charge for his own services. When the success of the Turbinia was established, a new Company called Parsons' Marine Steam Turbine Company, Ld., with a nominal capital of 500,0001, divided into 5000 shares of the nominal value of 1007. each, was formed for the purpose of purchasing from the old Company the license which 40 they held from Mr. Parsons, together with the Turbinia and all the tools and effects of the Company. The purchase price was 30,0007. in cash and 80,0007. in shares, together with certain royalties and certain rights to further shares in the event of further issues of capital. After repayment of the outlay on the Turbinia, the sum received in cash by Mr. Parsons, in respect 45 of his shares in the old Company, does not seem to have been more than sufficient to pay him a fair remuneration for his services in connection with the Turbinia. The result appears to be that the remuneration which Mr. Parsons has received for his invention, consists of so much of his interest in the new 50 Company, and so much of his remaining interest in the old Company, as may be properly attributable to the patent No. 6735 of 1884. As regards Mr. Parsons' interest in the old Company, he is entitled to certain royalties which no doubt may prove extremely valuable, but from which no profit has hitherto been derived. His shares in the new Company, 300 in all, reduced in 55 number by a few shares given by him to his employees, are admittedly of considerable value. Shares in the Company are not on the market, and have In the Matter of Parsons' Patent. never been sold. Their Lordships, however, think they ought to be taken at their par value. The question then arises,-How much of Mr. Parsons' interest in the old Company and in the new Company is properly attributable to the patent No. 5 6735 of 1884? That is a very difficult question. But having regard to all the circumstances, and having considered the evidence of the gentleman who assessed the value of the patents comprised in the sale to the new Company for the purpose of apportioning the price between them, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the amount should be taken at not more than 10 one-half, and not less than one-fourth. Having arrived at this conclusion, considering the position of the new Company, bearing in mind that it cannot commence operations at the earliest before August next, and that the value of the shares in the new Company must depend to a large extent on the prolongation of the original patent, and weighing all 15 the other circumstances of the case, their Lordships are of opinion that Mr. Parsons has not been adequately remunerated, and they will consequently make their report to that effect. They have already intimated that the patent should be prolonged for five years. 20 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. Before LORDS JUSTICES SMITH, CHITTY, and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS. May 2nd, 3rd, 19th, and 25th, 1898. BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK v. LA SOCIÉTÉ CHIMIQUE DES Patent.-Action for infringement of two patents.-Case abandoned as to one 25 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 30 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 case of Monnet v. Beck). In the course of the trial they were allowed to amend their 35 Particulars by introducing a fresh objection-that 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. Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. La Société Chimique des 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 5 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. On the 10th of November 1887, a patent (No. 15,374 of 1887) was granted to James Yate Johnson for "Improvements in the manufacture or production of 10 "red colouring matters suitable for dyeing and printing," communicated to him from abroad by the Plaintiffs in this action. On the 20th of May 1892, a patent (No. 9633 of 1892) was granted to James Yate Johnson for "The manufacture and production of new basic "dye-stuffs," communicated to him by The Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik, 15 of Ludwigshafen-on-the-Rhine. The Complete Specification was as follows: 66 My foreign correspondents have discovered that a new basic rhodamine "dye can be obtained by treating symmetrical di-ethyl rhodamine of the "phthalic acid series in a manner such as to cause a further combination 20 "thereof with ethyl. This dye (which may be called 'di-ethyl-rhodamineethyl-ester') can be used for dyeing silk and wool but appears to be best "suited for dyeing vegetable fibre when mordanted with tannin. To such "material it imparts red shades of colour which cannot be equalled in beauty "and fastness, by the use of any hitherto known dye. 66 "The invention can be applied to other di-alkyl-rhodamines of the phthalic "and succinic acid series which yield analogous results and in every case "instead of causing a further combination with ethyl, so as to obtain an ethyl "ester, other alkyl groups may be introduced whether mono- or poly-valent so as to obtain other esters. 66 "Having stated the nature of the invention I will further illustrate it by giving the following examples but I premise that these can be varied "considerably in their details and that they are merely typical, illustrating "the application of their invention to particular cases. The parts are by "weight. 66 66 25 30 35 Example 1. Dissolve about one part of symmetrical di-ethyl-rhodamine "in about five parts of ethyl- or methyl-alcohol and pass a current of dry hydrochloric acid gas through the solution till it is saturated. The formation "of the new dye will take place in the cold but in practice it is best to heat the "mixture for which purpose the containing vessel may be fitted with an inverted 40 or reflux condenser and heated on the water-bath. Continue to pass the "hydrochloric acid gas slowly through the boiling solution until no further "conversion of the di-ethyl-rhodamine into the new dye is observed. This usually is the case in about five hours. 66 66 "To isolate the new dye distil off the alcohol and hydrochloric acid on the 45 "water bath and dissolve the residue in hot water and filter the hot solution if "it be not clear. On cooling, the new dye separates out in the crystalline "form. Its more complete separation can be obtained by adding a little "hydrochloric acid. Filter, press and dry at a low temperature. "Example 2. Heat about one part of di-ethyl-rhodamine-hydrochlorate, 50 "dissolved in about four parts of ethyl- or methyl-alcohol, in an autoclave for "about ten hours at a temperature of about one hundred and fifty degrees "centigrade and work up as described in Example 1. "Example 3. Heat about forty parts of di-ethyl-rhodamine base with about |