The Continental Gas Gluhlicht Actien Gesellschaft (Meteor) Petition. urging that it had not been made out by the Petitioners that the Patentees had been guilty of any default within the meaning of Section 22 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, and that under the circumstances no unreasonable refusal on the part of the Patentees had been shown. He also submitted that The Stock and 5 Debenture Corporation, Ld., were not in such a position as to warrant the grant of the license to them. Bousfield, Q.C., applied for leave to amend the petition. The REFEREE stated that he could not see how the petition could be satisfactorily amended, but allowed the proceedings to be adjourned until the 10 10th of February, on which day the REFEREE was informed that The Stock and Debenture Corporation withdrew from the petition. Bousfield, Q.C., then applied for leave to amend the petition by asking for the grant of a license to The Meteor Company, on their giving an undertaking to manufacture in this country, and he submitted that the original application 15 which was made for a license and the refusal which was given covered that. The application was made on behalf of The Meteor Company, and the refusal was clearly a refusal to allow The Meteor Company or anybody else to have the mantles, and he submitted that the Board of Trade ought to allow the petition to be amended in that way, and, if it thought it a proper case, to grant a license 20 on the amended petition to The Meteor Company, and he asked the REFEREE to give his decision on this point before going any further, and said that if the decision was against the Petitioners there would be an end of the matter. 25 The REFEREE.-I think you may take it that 1 am against you. I report to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade gives the decision. Walter submitted the question whether costs could be given against the Petitioners. Bousfield, Q.C.-Where a license is entirely refused there is no power to give costs. The REFEREE.-That is quite clear. It is extremely unfair to Patentees that 30 these applications should be allowed without the Board of Trade having the power to make the applicant pay the costs in the event of the refusal of the application. By the Order of the Board of Trade, which was made on the 19th of May 1898, the petition was dismissed. Levinstein's Petition. Before R. W. WALLACE, Q.C. (Referee appointed by the Board of Trade). January 31st, February 1st, 15th, 16th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 28th, and IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1883, AND IN THE MATTER OF LETTERS PATENT Nos. 9642 AND 15,176 of 1889, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEVINSTEIN, LD., AND IVAN LEVINSTEIN TO THE BOARD OF TRADE FOR AN ORDER FOR COMPULSORY LICENSES. 5 10 Patent.-Petition for compulsory licenses.-Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 22.-Respondents' patents not worked in United Kingdom.-Refusal to grant licenses.-Offer by Respondents.-Offer to sell materials to Petitioners on terms. -Terms discussed.-Amount of royalty.-Default of Respondents.-Respondents manufacturing in Germany.-No patents in Germany.-Evidence.-Witnesses 15 called to support and oppose petition.--License granted. This was a petition to the Board of Trade for a compulsory license under Section 22 of the Patents, &c. Act, 1883. The Petitioners, Levinstein, Ld., are a firm of manufacturing chemists carrying on business in Manchester. The Respondents, The Farbwerke vormals 20 Meister Lucius, und Brüning, were also a firm of manufacturing chemists carrying on business at Hoechst-am Maine, in Germany. On the 11th of June 1889, an English patent (No. 9642 of 1889) was granted to Oliver Imray, on behalf of the Respondents, for an invention entitled "The production of oxysulphonic acids of napthalin." 25 On the 26th of September 1889, a second English patent (No. 15,176 of 1889) was granted to Oliver Imray, on behalf of the Respondents, for an invention entitled "Improvements in the production of amido-napthol-monosulphonic acids, and the manufacture of their diazo compounds and azo "colouring matters therefrom." Both these patents were duly assigned by 30 Oliver Imray to the Respondents. 66 On the 6th of March 1897, Petitioners wrote to Respondents the following letter:"Manchester, 6th March 1897. "Messrs. Meister Lucius, & Brüning. "Gentlemen,—We desire to have licenses under Section 22, clauses (A) and "(C) of your English patents No. 9642, A.D. 1889, and No. 15,176, A.D. 1889, 35 Levinstein's Petition. " and take the liberty of enquiring on what terms you will grant to us these "said licenses. "Yours, &c., "Levinstein, Ld." 5 The following correspondence then passed : "Messrs. Farbwerke vormals 66 "Meister Lucius, & Brüning. "Manchester, 11th March 1897. "Gentlemen,-We beg to confirm our letter of the 6th inst. asking on what 10 "terms you will grant to us licenses under Section 22, clauses (A) and (C) of your English patents No. 9642, A.D. 1889, and No. 15,176, A.D. 1889, and "would feel obliged if you would kindly let us have your reply per return of post. To-day we beg to enquire under the same clauses for licenses of your English patents No. 9258, A.D. 1890, and No. 5904, A.D. 1891, and would also 15 "be pleased to learn on what terms you will grant to us these licenses. 66 66 "Yours, &c., "Levinstein, Ld." "Messrs. Levinstein, Ld. "11th March 1897. 20 66 "Gentlemen,--We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., but "before replying to the question contained therein you would oblige me by letting us know for what purpose you are desirous of acquiring the licenses "referred to. 66 Yours, &c., 25 "Farbwerke vormals "Meister Lucius, and Co." "13th March 1897. "Gentlemen,-We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 11th, and "in reply desire to say that we cannot see any reason for letting you know the purpose for which we are desirous of obtaining the licenses beyond what we have already stated in our letter of March 6th, viz., that we desire to "have licenses under Section 22, clauses (A) and (C). Your patent is not being "worked in this country, which is sufficient reason for our application to you "for a license, and further we are prevented from working or using to the best advantage an invention of which we are possessed. "Gentlemen,-We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th inst, Levinstein's Petition. "We note that you are unable or unwilling to let us know the purpose for "which you are desirous of acquiring the licenses in question, and that you can แ 66 66 or may not name the invention, the working or using of which you say you are prevented from by our patents. Under these circumstances, and as we are working our patents in your country, we cannot grant you the licenses 5 66 required in your letters of the 6th and 11th inst. 66 "Meister Lucius, & Brüning. "Gentlemen,-In reply to your letter of March 16th, you are scarcely right "in saying that we are unable or unwilling to let you know the purpose for "which we are desirous of acquiring the licenses in question. What we said 15 "was that we cannot see any reason for letting you know the purpose beyond "that we desire to have licenses of the patents specified under Section 22, "clauses (A) and (C). This we considered a sufficient answer to your question, as it must be evident that if anybody applies for a license under clause (A) "that he wishes to work the patent, and under clause (C) that he is prevented 20 "from working or using to the best advantage an invention of which he is possessed—both of which are our reasons for our application to you. You "state in your letter that you are working the patents in question in this "country-if this is the case, we feel sure that you will not consider it "unreasonable on our part to ask you in what town, or in what place, and under 25 “what address you are working the said invention in this country. 66 “Yours, &c., "Levinstein, Ld.” "24th March 1897. "Messrs. Levinstein, Ld. "Gentlemen,-We are in receipt of your letter of the 19th inst., which, "however, does not contain a satisfactory answer to our question. Under these "circumstances, we are of opinion that your object is merely to avail yourselves "of them for agitation purposes. We consequently see no reason why we "should answer the question you now address to us. 66 Yours, &c., "Farbwerbe vormals "Meister Lucius, & Brüning." 30 35 The correspondence between the Petitioners and Respondents having terminated, the Petitioners presented a petition to the Board of Trade for a 40 compulsory license under the two Patents. The petition, after stating the patents and the assignments thereof, continued :— "(2) The privileges granted to the said Patentees by the said Patents include "inter alia the exclusive right to use within this realm the following processes "of manufacture, that is to say :-(a) The production of oxynapthalinsulphonic 45 "acids by heating the napthol di- and tri-sulphonic acids with caustic alkalies; 5 10 Levinstein's Petition. "(b) The production of amido-naphthol sulphonates by heating betanaphthy"lamine-disulphonic acids with caustic alkalies under or without pressure to "200-280° C. 66 66 66 (3) The Patentees are manufacturing chemists who carry on their manu"facture at Hoechst-am-Maine in the German Empire aforesaid, and they there "manufacture dye-stuffs by the processes above mentioned; but the Patentees "and the said Oliver Imray have wholly failed to introduce the use of the "said processes or of any of them within the realm, and have not at any time attempted so to do. It is on the contrary, the settled commercial policy of "the Patentees to prevent the introduction and use of their patented processes "within this realm. They import and sell the products of these manufactures at prices greatly in excess of the prices at which they sell the same products "to their customers in other countries, and they make use of their privileges "under the said Patent grants for no other purpose than to exclude other 15 "manufacturers and to raise the prices of the said commodities in the British "market. Dye-stuffs manufactured in accordance with the said processes are "in large demand within this realm for the treatment of Manchester and other goods, some of which are intended for export to markets in which foreign "manufacturers compete with British manufacturers, and the preference 20 "granted by the Patentees to their foreign customers is a great hindrance to "British trade in such foreign markets. Thus by reason of the default of "the Patentees, the grants of privilege so as aforesaid made to them are "mischievous, and cause hurt of trade, and are prejudicial and inconvenient "to Her Majesty's subjects in general. 66 86 66 25 (4) Your Petitioners are manufacturing chemists carrying on their manu"facture upon a large scale at Crumpsall Vale Works, Blackley, Manchester, in "the county of Lancaster, and they have great facilities for the carrying on of "the said patented processes and for the production of dye-stuffs thereby. "They have by themselves and by the predecessors of the petitioning Com30"pany in business, been for a long time engaged in the production of colouring matters, and have conducted numerous and costly experiments, as the result "of which they have introduced from time to time many improvements in the "manufacture of such dye-stuffs, in connection with which they carry on an "extensive manufacture and trade. They have recently discovered a process 35 "by which valuable new dye-stuffs can be manufactured, which dye-stuffs are improvements upon the dye-stuffs so as aforesaid manufactured by the "Patentees in Germany, and by them imported and sold within this realm. "Other similar improved dye-stuffs have similarly been discovered by your "Petitioners, and they are still conducting experiments from which they hope 40" that further discoveries of the same kind will result. But the valuable new "dye-stuffs referred to can only be manufactured by employing the patented "processes above mentioned, and your Petitioners, Levinstein, Ld., did, therefore, apply to the Patentees for a license to manufacture under their said "Patents. The Patentees have refused to entertain the said application for a 45 "license, and still refuse to grant such license as is necessary to enable your "Petitioners to introduce the patented manufactures into use within this realm, and to work and use to the best advantage the said inventions of "which your Petitioners are possessed. 66 66 (5) Your Petitioners are well able to introduce and carry on the said manu50"facture if duly licensed so to do, and they will undertake to introduce and 66 66 carry on the same according to their ability, provided that a proper license is "accorded to them. The terms upon which it is submitted that the Patentees may justly be ordered to grant such license as is desired to your Petitioners, "Levinstein, Ld., and their successors and assigns, are set out in the Schedule 55" appended hereto. 66 "Your Petitioners therefore pray that an order may be made by the Board of Trade under Section 22 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, |