Reports of Patent, Design, and Trade Mark Cases

The Mica Insulator Company v. The Electrical Company, Ld.

They have only given evidence of a certain number. Of course, they have limited their case to what they thought sufficient. Now, as against that, I have a certain amount of rebutting evidence, and Mr. Moulton has not failed to make the most of that, and to show, to some extent, a conflict. I propose to deal with that in this very brief way :-strike out everything about which there is a conflict 5 on this point which is not corroborated by Professor Thompson. Professor Thompson spoke in the witness box of his own experience and observation. As regards any matter of opinion, of course, though his opinion is entitled to great weight, it might be weighed against other opinions; but as regards his own observation of what he saw, there can be no doubt at all. Not only was there 10 no attempt really to break it down, but it stands, of course, as the evidence of a gentleman quite capable of observing, and, of course, he gave his evidence in the most direct manner. I followed the evidence of the other witnesses, and I followed Mr. Moulton's criticism, including his own rebutting evidence. I repeat, strike out everything that can be in contest-I am not saying that that is 15 the proper way of dealing with it on the weight of evidence, but strike out everything about which there is a conflict, and which is not corroborated by Professor Thompson; retain that which stands corroborated by his own observation, and there is quite enough for prior user again and again as against the Plaintiffs. I do not propose to go into it in detail, because that is a matter that 20 would take a long time, and would, I think, be a useless expenditure of time. On these two grounds, without saying any more, I hold that the Plaintiffs' case fails.

I have ticked off those Particulars which I think ought to be allowed as reasonable and proper, and I will hand the list to the Registrar; but perhaps the 25 easiest way to get it on the notes is to state, as I have found it useful to state on other occasions, those which will not be certified as reasonable and proper.

The learned Judge then stated the Particulars as to which no certificate would be given.

In the Matter of Hattersley and Jackson's Patent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION.

Before MR. JUSTICE ROMER.-June 15th, 16th, and 21st, 1898.

IN THE MATTER OF HATTERSLEY AND JACKSON'S PATENT.

Patent.-Petition for revocation.-First and true inventor.-Alleged fraud 5 on Petitioners.-Petition dismissed.

A patent, having in 1895 been granted to H. and J. for improvements in the shedding mechanism for looms, F. and L., who had opposed the grant of the Letters Patent, presented a petition for revocation of the same, alleging that they were the inventors of the patented invention, and that the invention had 10 been patented by F. and L. in fraud of them.

Held, that on the evidence the grounds of the petition failed, and that the petition must be dismissed, with costs.

On the 30th of November 1895, Letters Patent (No. 22,928 of 1895) were granted to Richard Longden Hattersley and Simeon Jackson for an invention 15 of Improvements in or appertaining to the shedding mechanism of looms for "weaving." The Provisional Specification was dated the 27th of November 1895. The grant of the Letters Patent was opposed before the Law Officer by William Richard Gibbs Farey and Robert Langhorne, who claimed to be the inventors of the invention in respect of which the Letters Patent were subsequently granted. 20 The Complete Specification, so far as material for this report, was as follows:This invention "relates to that class of shedding mechanism of looms for "weaving, wherein an open shed dobby, with double lifting levers, is employed "for actuating the healds, and it consists of an improved arrangement of the lifting levers. Hitherto, when two lifting levers have been used for each 25 “heald, in conjunction with an open shed dobby, it has been usual to connect only one of such levers to the corresponding bell-crank lever of the dobby, "motion being given to the second lifting lever by means of toothed sectors formed with the said levers, whereby these said levers are geared together, "the movement of one effecting a like movement of the other. The result of 30 the constant friction on the teeth is that the second lever is not sufficiently "accurate in its movements, and has on this account frequently to be replaced. "To obviate this we have devised a more durable method of connecting the "levers to the bell-crank levers of the dobby, the following being a description "of our said method. We operate both lifting levers of each heald directly 35"from their corresponding bell-crank levers of the dobby, and pivot the two lifting levers of each heald in the same position as when they are geared one "to the other, but dispense with the before-named toothed sectors usually "formed with the said lifting levers. The first lifting lever, or lever nearest "to the dobby, is formed, and connected to the bell-crank lever, in the same manner as when the two levers are geared together, with the exception that "it is formed without the toothed sector. The second lever, however, in " addition to being formed without the toothed sector, is made after the shape "of a bell-crank lever. The bell-crank lever of the dobby is formed with a "finger, to which is hooked or connected one end of a bar, the other end of

In the Matter of Hattersley and Jackson's Patent.

"which is hooked or connected to the vertical arm of the second lifting lever. Thus the movement of each of the bell-crank levers of the dobby directly operates both of the corresponding lifting levers to which the healds are connected, the said healds being thereby raised evenly, and into a perfectly "level position." The claim was: "The manner of connecting the 5 "lifting lever D' to the bell-crank lever A substantially as shown and "described."

On the 2nd of August 1897, William Richard Gibbs Farey and Robert Langhorne presented a petition asking for the revocation of the said Letters Patent. The petition, after stating the grant of the said Letters Patent, con- 10 tinued as follows:-" (2) Your Petitioner Farey is the sole partner of the firm "of Samuel Farey and Son, and your Petitioner Langhorne is the manager "of the said firm. The said firm carries on the business of cotton spinning. (3) The Respondent Hattersley is a director of the Company of G. "Hattersley and Sons, Ld., of North Brook Works, Keighley, Yorkshire, 15 "machine makers, and the Respondent Jackson is a manager of the said "firm. (4) Prior to the 21st day of November 1895, your Petitioners, "W. R. G. Farey and Robert Langhorne, had invented certain Improvements "in or appertaining to the shedding mechanism of looms for weaving,' "the same being the invention for which the same Letters Patent were 20 "granted as aforesaid to Hattersley and Jackson. (5) On the 22nd of "November 1895, your Petitioner Langhorne communicated under a pledge "of confidence and secrecy to the said Simeon Jackson the said invention "of Farey and Langhorne for the purpose of having a working model of "the said invention manufactured by the said firm of G. Hattersley and Sons, 25 "Ld. (6) The said invention so communicated in confidence on the "22nd day of November 1895, by your Petitioner Langhorne to the "Respondent Jackson was in fraud of your Petitioners patented by the "Respondents Hattersley and Jackson on the 30th day of November 1895, "in the said Letters Patent numbered 22,928 of the year 1895. (7) The 30 "said Richard Langden Hattersley and the said Simeon Jackson were not "the first and true inventors of the said invention."

The Particulars of Objections delivered in support of the petition alleged (1) that the said R. L. Hattersley and the said S. Jackson were not, nor was either of them, the first and true inventors of the invention forming the subject- 35 matter of the said Letters Patent; and (2) that the invention forming the subject-matter of the said Letters Patent was the invention of the said W. R. G. Farey and R. Langhorne, and the said invention was, on the 22nd of November 1895, confidentially communicated by the said R. Langhorne to the said S. Jackson, and the said Letters Patent were in fraud of the rights of the 40 said W. R. G. Farey and the said R. Langhorne, applied for by the said R. L. Hattersley and the said S. Jackson on the 30th of November 1895.

Neville, Q.C., J. K. Bradbury, and A. J. Walter (instructed by Rowcliffes, Rawle, and Co., agents for Cooper and Sons, of Manchester) appeared for the Petitioners; Bousfield, Q.C., Jenkins, Q.C., and W. Neill (instructed by Richard 45 Smith and Sons, agents for Spencer, Clarkson, and Co., of Keighley) appeared for the Respondents.

Bousfield, Q.C., opened for the Respondents. [As the question was wholly one of fact, it appears in this case unnecessary to report the addresses of Counsel.]

The witnesses for the Respondents were, in addition to themselves, J. S. Critchley, C. T. Roberts, J. Ellison, G. Calvert, and J. P. Holmes. Neville, Q.C., opened the Petitioners' case.

The witnesses for the Petitioners, in addition to themselves, were T. Bailey,

E. Wilkinson, and A. Jarman.

Neville, Q.C., summed up the Petitioners' case.

In the Matter of Hattersley and Jackson's Patent.

Bousfield, Q.C., replied.

ROMER, J.-This is a very curious case, and I am not surprised that the Petitioners should have been extremely suspicious of the Respondents' story. That story is so peculiar that I myself felt strong doubts at one time as to its 5 accuracy, but I have come to the conclusion that I ought to accept the evidence of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hattersley, corroborated as it is to a considerable extent by other witnesses of undoubted truth.

I am bound to say that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hattersley, so far as demeanour was concerned, gave their evidence well, and that they were not shaken on 10 cross-examination. So that, apart from the strangeness of their story, and the absence of certain corroborating evidence which one might have expected to find in the Respondents' books, I can find no sufficient ground for not accepting their evidence, and I think I am not justified, looking at the evidence as a whole, in discrediting their story. The evidence of Mr. Critchley is, of course, 15 peculiarly favourable to the Respondents. His diary shows clearly that on the 23rd of November the Respondents' Provisional Specification for the invention was drafted, and that on the morning of the 22nd he was at the Respondents' works at Keighley. In the absence of any suspicious circumstances, of course the inference would be that the visit on the 22nd was connected with the 20 drafting of the Provisional Specification on the 23rd, and there is certainly no entry in the diary, not a word to show that there was any visit from or to the Respondents' works after the morning of the 22nd, and, so far as I can see from the diary, there appears to have been no other business of the Respondents' on which Mr. Critchley was at this time engaged, except the business of this 25 invention. On the whole, I think he must have been at the works on the 22nd to have seen this invention, and that he did then see the machine there. Indeed, so far as his own memory is concerned, as to which he spoke very modestly, he was certainly of the opinion that he drew in his book the sketch we have of the invention from a machine he saw on the 22nd, and not from 30 any verbal instructions, or any other sketch shown to him.

Looking at the case as a whole (I can only state it shortly), it appears to me that the Respondents' account is to be accepted that there was a machine as they have stated, which subsequently received a provisional protection, in existence on the morning of the 22nd, and that consequently the only ground 35 on which this petition is presented fails.

I am not concerned in this petition to consider whether the invention was one which would form good subject-matter of a patent. It may be after Mr. Hattersley's evidence that the Patentees, the Respondents, may have considerable difficulty in supporting this patent when it comes to be considered 40 hereafter, but with that I have nothing to do on this occasion. All I can say is, that the only ground on which this petition is presented fails, and the petition must be dismissed; and seeing that the matter had previously been, to a certain extent, thrashed out on the application before the Solicitor-General, I come to the conclusion that in dismissing this petition I must do so with costs.

In the Matter of Cerckel's Patent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION.

Before MR. JUSTICE BYRNE.-July 22nd, 1898.

IN THE MATTER OF CERCKEL'S PATENT.

Patent.-Petition for revocation.-Patent not producing alleged result.—

Patent revoked.-Practice.

In 1896, Letters Patent were granted to C. for "Preparation of orthosulphamine benzoic acid," being a method of preparing saccharine. In 1897, The Saccharine Corporation, Ld., presented a petition for revocation of this patent on the ground of want of utility, want of subject-matter, and that the Specification did not describe a process by which saccharine could be produced. On the hearing of the petition it was unopposed, and the patent was revoked. Practice where Respondent is abroad.

On the 13th of July 1896, Letters Patent (No. 15,493 of 1896) were granted to Gustave Cerckel for an invention of the "Preparation of ortho-sulphamine "benzoic acid."

The Complete Specification was as follows:-"The process described below " is based on the transformation of orthocresol into toluene sulphamine which "yields, on oxidation with potassium permanganate, ortho-sulphamine-benzoic "acid, the anhydride of which is saccharine. The process is as follows :-An "intimate mixture of orthocresol and ammonium bisulphite in equivalent 20 "proportions is heated, preferably in a closed vessel to a temperature not exceeding 150° C. it is generally well however to have a slight excess of the "ammonium salt. After twelve hours the reaction is complete and the resulting "product is dissolved in hot water and the untransformed cresol removed by a "current of steam. The resulting sulphamine is purified by crystallization in 25 "hot water and then oxydized by permanganate in the usual manner. The "transformation of the cresol into sulphamine takes place according to the "following equation :

\ SO, NH, + 2 HẠO.

Having now particularly described and ascertained the nature of my said 30 "invention and in what manner the same is to be performed I declare that "what I claim is :-The preparation substantially as described of ortho"sulphamine benzoic acid by the transformation of orthocresol into toluene "sulphamine and the subsequent oxidation of this body."

On the 17th of December 1897, The Saccharine Corporation, Ld., with the 35 leave of the Attorney-General, presented a petition for revocation of the said Letters Patent. The petition alleged :-"(2) The Letters The Letters Patent, the

« Previous Continue »

Books

Reports of Patent, Design, and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 15