Page images


LD., p. 303.
2. Amendment allowed in the course of the trial, BADISCHE ANILIN


Unregistered person held not to have knowingly described himself

as a Patent Agent.-Person not registered as Patent Agent
knowingly describing himself as a Patent Agent.-No express de-
scription by such person.-“ Patent Expert."-Patents, &c. Act, 1888,
Section 1, and Rule 5, Register of Patent Agents Rules, 1889.-

p. 259.


Rule 5. GRAHAM V ELI, p. 259.


PRACTICE. See also INFRINGEMENT, No. 9. 1. Affidavits made on information and belief must show what the sources

of information are. SACCHARIN CORPORATION, LD. V. THE

CHEMICAL AND DRUGS Co., LD., p. 53. 2, Cross-examination allowed before the Court of Appeal. SACCHARIN

CORPORATION, LD. v. THE CHEMICAL AND DRUGS Co., LD., p. 5:3. 3. Interrogatories. Order for further and better answer.— Action for

infringement.--Interrogatories by Plaintiffs.-Order for further and better answer:- Appeal. The S. Corporation, Ld., being the owners of several Letters Patent relating to the manufacture of saccharin, commenced an action for infringement against H., W., and Co., who denied infringement and the validity of the said Letters Patent. The S. Corporation, Ld., who claimed to be entitled in England to all known processes for making saccharin, delivered interrogatories for the examination of the Defendants, of which the first asked (inter alia and in effect) whether the Defendants had not sold in England certain compounds, and whether the same were manufactured in England, and where, and by whom, and how, and from whom did the Defendants obtain the compounds so manufactured in England ; whether the same were manufactured abroad, and where, and by whom ; whether the Defendants imported into England the compounds in question, and, if so, how and from whom, and, if not, how and from whom did the Defendants obtain the same. The answer by H., who traded as H., W., and Co., stated that he had sold in England the said compounds, that he had no knowledge as to where or by whom the same were manufactured, but he believed on the Continent of Europe ; that he had no knowledge as to by whom the same were manufactured, and he declined to state his belief on this point, or from whom he obtained the same. An order was made by North, J., for a further and better answer. The Defendants PRACTICE-continued.

appealed.-Held, that under the circumstances the order appealed from ought not to be disturbed ; and the appeal was dismissed, with costs. SACCHARIN CORPORATION, LD. v. HAINES, WARD, AND Co.,

p. 344.


WORKS Co., p. 438. 5. Petition for revocation where Respondent is abroad. CERCKEL'S

PATENT, p. 500. 6. It has been the practice of the Privy Council never to grant prolongation

of Letters Patent where the first inventor can receive no benefit from

prolongation, per Lord MACNAGHTEN. FINCH'S PATENT, p. 676. 7. See also DIGEST OF DESIGN CASES. (Costs.)





Held to have been established. SINNETTE'S PATENT, p. 76.


PROLONGATION. 1. Duty of Petitioners.—“ Independently of the question whether the

“ existence of prior patents does not take away merit from the later

one, it is incumbent upon all persons who come here petitioning for

a prolongation that the whole history, everything bearing on the “ matter, should be stated on the face of the petition "; per Lord

HOBHOUSE. STANDFIELD'S PATENT, p. 17. 2. Petition for, granted where a meritorious invention had been

worked at a loss.-No remuneration.-Utility proved.-Prolongation granted for 10 years. A. and B. obtained a patent for improvements in working railway signals by electricity, and the patent became vested in B., who applied for prolongation. It appeared that there had been a difficulty in getting the invention adopted by Railway Companies, and that the Patentees had sustained a large loss. It also appeared that the invention was one of considerable merit. -Held that, under the circumstances, the patent should be

prolonged for 10 years. CURRIE AND TIMMIS' PATENT, p. 63. 3. Prolongation refused.—Merits of invention.Prolongation refused.

Question discussed, but not decided, whether a patent will be prolonged when one of the claims in the Specification is admitted by the Petitioner to be invalid. BURLINGHAM, INNES, AND LEE'S

PATENT, p. 195. 4. Petition for, granted the remuneration to inventor being held to

be inadequate.-Petition for prolongation.Merit.Remuneration to inventor inadequate. Period of protection extended. P. patented an invention for “ Improvements in rotary motors “actuated by elastic fluid pressure and applicable also as pumps," first in England (1884) and then in various foreign countries. The invention was one of great merit. The merit of the invention lay in


setting down the conditions essential to the successful use of the velocity of steam for causing rotary motion without the intervention of any reciprocating apparatus. The apparatus, when used for marine propulsion, considerably increased the rate of speed. Five of the foreign patents had been allowed to lapse owing to circumstances rendering them of an unremunerative character. From 1884 to 1894 the Patentee, in conjunction with partners and alone, endeavoured to profitably make use of his invention for purposes other than marine propulsion. The accounts showed a considerable loss. In 1894, the Patentee granted to a Company an exclusive license to use the Letters Patent, together with other of his patents, for the purpose of marine propulsion, the consideration being the payment of certain royalties (in respect to which, up to the date of the petition, he had received no payment) and 9,0001. in fully paid shares. Experiments were made, and a sum of 16,0001. spent in fitting a vessel with engines driven by steam turbines. Shortly before the date of the petition a new Company took over the interest of the first Company in the vessel and license. The consideration for this transfer was 30,0001, in cash and 80,0001. in shares, with certain royalties and rights to further shares. Of this consideration the Patentee received for his interest in the first Company 9,0001. in cash and about 30,0001. in shares. In the valuation of the patents made for the purpose of the transfer from the first Company to the second Company, the sum of 1,0001. in cash and shares was apportioned to the patent in question. At the date of the petition, the second Company, being satisfied with the experiments made, was about to erect its workshops and commence operations. In 1895, the Patentee granted a license to a third Company to work under certain of his foreign patents, reserving to himself and his licensees the right to use the invention for marine propulsion. From the accounts, it appeared that the net sum received from the third Company was 5,2631. 18s. Od., one-fifth of which was treated for the purpose of the petition as in respect of the patent in question. Apart from the sums realised in respect of the rights relating to marine propulsion, the accounts showed a net loss on the working of the patent.--Held, that the Patentee had not been adequately remunerated, and that the patent should be prolonged for five years.


p. 349.

5. Prolongation refused, the Patentee not having kept sufficient

accounts.-Petition for prolongation by Putentee.--Insufficiency of accounts.-Prolongation refused.-Duty of a Patentee as to keeping accounts in view of a petition for prolongation. H. applied for prolongation of a patent granted to him, alleging utility of the invention and that he had received no remuneration at all. He had kept no books, but shortly before the presentation of the petition he had marked upon certain cheques drawn upon his private account approximately the amounts expended by him at different times in working the patent. Upon these materials the accounts accompanying the petition were made up by the accountant. There were no vouchers or other corroboration. -Held, that prolongation ought to

be refused. HUGHES' PATENT, p. 370. 6. Duty of a Patentee to keep accounts in view of possible application for

prolongation explained. HUGHES' PATENT, p. 371.

[ocr errors]

PROLONGATION-continued. 7. Prolongation refused on the ground that the Patentee had

received sufficient remuneration.Petition for prolongation by Patentee and assignees.-Sufficient remuneration in relation to the merit of the invention.-Prolongation refused. In 1884, a patent was granted to L. for “ Improvements in moulds for moulding “ decorative or other slabs and blocks." He assigned this patent with others to the P. A. Company, and 6,0001. was the consideration for the assignment, besides which L. had received 2501, from another company. The P. A. Company went into liquidation and a new company, the A. S. Company, acquired the patent. L. and the A. S. Company presented a petition for prolongation of the patent. It transpired that L. had for some eight years received 3001. per annum as managing director of the A. Company. L. claimed to deduct from the 6,2501, the costs incurred by him in certain legal proceedings in relation to the patent, and that the balance was an insufficient remuneration. The accounts showed that the patent had been worked at a loss.Held, that the 3001. a year ought to have been brought into account by the Patentee ; that he was not entitled to make the deductions claimed, and that having regard to the merits of the invention and the circumstances of the case, it was impossible for the Judicial Committee to report that the Patentee had been inadequately remunerated, and the petition was dismissed. MCLEAN'S

PATENT, p. 418. 8. Where a Patentee receives fees as managing director of a company

which is the assignee of the patent, the Patentee is bound to include such fees in the accounts showing the remuneration received

by him in respect of the patent. See MCLEAN'S PATENT, p. 418. 9. Petition for refused on the ground that the Patentee, who had

absolutely assigned his rights, would receive no benefit by prolongation.- Petition for prolongation.-Petition by assignee.No benefit to Patentee.--Petition dismissed. A patent, granted in 1884, was in 1888 absolutely assigned, in consideration of a sum then paid, to F., who had in 1886 obtained a patent for a similar invention. F., in 1898, presented a petition for prolongation of the patent of 1884.--Held that, as the Patentee would not derive any benefit from a prolongation, the petition must be dismissed. In the Matter of Bower and Barff's Patent, 12 R.P.C. 383, followed. FINCH'S PATENT, p. 674.

REVOCATION OF PATENT. 1. Petition for Revocation of Patent. Fraud upon rights of

Petitioner.Patents, &c. Act, 1883, Section 26, + (c). In 1891, two patents were granted to N., one on the 4th of December for “ the “ manufacture of an improved compound for coating walls and other “surfaces, and for the production of casts or mouldings, and for "analogous purposes"; and the other on the 7th of December for " the manufacture of an improved compound for coating walls and “ other surfaces, and for analogous purposes”. In 1894, C. and H. presented a petition for revocation of these patents, and it was held, as to the earlier patent, that C. was the first and true inventor, and that the patent had been obtained by N. in fraud of C.'s rights, and it was accordingly revoked ; but no order was made as to the later patent, C. having abandoned the case as to that patent. A patent for


the invention to which the revoked patent related was subsequently granted to C., who in 1895 presented another petition for revocation of the later patent, alleging the same grounds as before. The earlier patent related to a compound formed from glue and an active base, whilst the later patent related to a compound formed from glue and an inert base, and the processes were admitted to be identical.-Held, that the process being C.'s in vention, he might have taken out a patent to cover the combination of glue with an inert base, and that the later patent was also obtained by N. in fraud of C.'s rights. The later patent was accordingly revoked, but no order was made as to costs. NORWOOD'S PATENT (No. 2), p. 100.

2. Fraud upon rights of Petitioner. See Norwood's PATENT (No.2),

p. 102.

3. Petition for revocation of a patent for the manufacture of an

alloy granted, the same alloy having been sold before the date of the patent.-Anticipation.-Same alloy sold before date of patent. -Issue whether composition of last-mentioned alloy could have been then ascertained by chemical analysis. In 1890, a patent was granted to M. for the manufacture of an alloy from certain metals, including bismuth, in the proportions stated in the Specification, and for the use of sal-ammoniac as part of the process. M., who was an American citizen, was trustee of the patent for an American Company or Companies. H. presented a petition for revocation of this patent. After the petition had been several times before the Court, it was established, to the satisfaction of the Judge, that the patented alloy had been sold in England before the date of the patent. The American Companies were then desirous of intervening, and of raising the further point that the said sales of the patented alloy before the date of the patent were not a prior publication of the invention, because at the dates of the sales a competent chemist, analysing the alloy, could not have discovered the presence of bismuth, bismuth being alleged to be the important ingredient in the alloy. This point was tried before the Judge separately, with oral evidence.-Held, that if reasonable care and reasonable skill were used by analysts before the date of the patent, the constituents and the proper proportions of the constituents of the alloy sold could have been ascertained, and therefore the patent was anticipated, and an order for revocation was made ; but the registration of the order was suspended, pending an appeal. The Respondents appealed, but subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to withdraw the appeal. The Petitioner thereupon asked that the appeal might be dismissed with costs, and

this was done. MILLER'S PATENT, p. 205. 4. Petition for revocation of two patents granted subject, as to one, to the

Patentee obtaining leave to amend by striking out the first claim.

5. Petition for, refused.-First and true inventor.-Alleged fraud 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 been patented by F. and L. in fraud of them.--Held, that on the

« PreviousContinue »