therefore determined to recommend an extension for six years from the time at which the former patent would, in this present year, have expired.*
This is a very important case to manufacturers, and to all parties interested in patent property. Several years before the granting of this patent, charcoal, both animal and vegetable, had been used in purifying syrups of sugar, and patents had been taken, one by M. Constant, in 1812, and the other by Messrs. Martineau, in 1815. In both cases, the parties used the charcoal reduced to a fine powder, and mixed it with the syrup, and then separated the charcoal by filtration in bag filters. It will, therefore, be seen that the use of charcoal was not new, and that this patent was confined to its use as a filter through which the syrups of sugar were to be caused to pass. The filter made of charcoal, described in the specification, was not new, and it was so stated in the specification-indeed, it was well known that similar filters had been used for many years, when filtering almost every description of liquid. In fact, this patent was simply applying an old machine-u filter of charcoalin the process of manufacturing sugar, by which that manufacture was greatly improved. Many persons, and even lawyers of high standing, have thought that a good patent could not be taken for simply applying an old machine to a new use. On the authority of this and other cases, it is clear that a machine, in patent law, is to be treated in the same manner as a raw material; and that any new application of either to a manufacture, which produces a beneficial result, is the proper subject for a patent.-W. C.
MACINTOSH, PRINTER,
GREAT NEW-STREET, London.
The abandonment of a part of a machine (described and claimed
as part of the invention), because it is useless, does not injure the
validity of a patent.—Lewis v. Marling, 475
The trying experiments in public by one party who afterwards
abandons them, or the making a machine which is destroyed before
it is publicly worked, does not constitute a publication of the inven-
tion, such as to invalidate a patent taken by another person.-Lewis
et al. v. Marling, 475; Jones v. Pearce, 524
The Court of Chancery, when an injunction is refused, will, in
most cases, direct the defendant to keep an account, in order that
the Court may settle the amount of damages after the validity of the
patent has been determined at law.-Walker v. Congreve, 356;"Russell
v. Cowley et als., 531-See "INJUNCTION."
ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, See" STATUTES”-
The Court of Chancery having granted an injunction, will, under
all circumstances, direct the validity of the patent to be tried, if
urged to do so by the defendant; and this notwithstanding a pre-
vious action against another defendant is pending.—Russell v. Barns-
ley, 563
An addition made to an old machine is a good subject for letters
patent.-Morris v. Bramson, 30; Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 117—
See "INVENTION."
The withholding of any information on matters which would
enable the public to practise an invention with greater advantage
than what is stated in the specification will render a patent void.-
Wood et als. v. Zimmer et als., 290; Lewis et al. v. Marling, 475;
Crompton v. Ibbotson, 458
By alteration and disclaimer of parts of the title and of the speci-
fication. See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83."
Under the Statute, may be made after judgment of a Court of Law
adverse to the validity of the patent.-Derosne v. Fairrie et al., 664
APPLICATION-
The new application of any matter or of a machine, so as to improve
a manufacture, is an invention which may be secured by patent.-
Hartley's Patent cited in Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 117; Hall v. Boot
et al., 423; Derosne v. Fairrie, 664; Forsyth v. Riviere, 401; Hill v.
Thompson, 369; The King v. Daniell, 453; Walker v. Congreve, 356
-See" INVENTION."
A patent coming into the hands of assignees under bankruptcy,
and they working it for the benefit of the creditors, will not destroy
the patent, though the number of creditors may exceed the number
of persons allowed by the letters patent to hold the same.-Bloxam
v. Else, 434
It is not necessary to set out the specification in the Bill, it being
enrolled in the Court of Chancery.-Brown v. Moore et als., 305
BANKRUPT
A person buying machinery at a sale of a bankrupt's effects, does
not, without a license under the patent, obtain a right to use the
invention.-Haworth v. Hardcastle et als., 597
The assignees of a bankrupt may work letters patent for the
benefit of creditors, although they exceed the number of persons
allowed by the patent.-Bloxam v. Else, 434
May be entered against disclaimers and alterations.-See "Sta-
tute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83."
Caveats may be entered against the sealing of letters patent sup-
posed to contain an invention which will interfere with a previous
patent.-Ex parte Fox, 274
The Lord Chancellor will, on application under a Caveat, refuse
to put the Great Seal to a patent having fifteen months allowed for
enrolling the specification. In re Lacey, 353
That the validity of a patent has been brought in question.-See
"Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83."
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-
A jury may infer that a manufacture sold by a defendant is an
infringement of a patent from any peculiar character common to
the patent and to the article made or sold by the defendant, coupled
with other circumstances, without having direct evidence of the
exact machinery or process used.-Huddart v. Grimshawe, 200;
Hall v. Boot, 423
Formerly the practice was general, and even in modern times it
is sometimes resorted to when drawing the specification of a patent,
simply to describe the whole of the machinery or processes used in
producing a particular manufacture without pointing out how much
is old or how much is new. In all such cases, where the novelty is
not obvious from reading the document, such specifications have
been held to claim all that is described, and patents have been
declared void under such circumstances, where old matter as well
as new matter has been found in a specification.-The King v. Else,
103; Bramah v. Hardcastle, 168; Bovill et als. v. Moore, 320; Hud-
dart v. Grimshawe, 200; Harmer v. Playne, 260; Macfarland v. Price,
309; Russell v. Cowley et als., 531
In other cases where specific claims have been made they have
been too extensive, claiming old matter as well as new. In all such
cases the patents have been declared void.-The King v. Cutler, 351;
Hill v. Thompson et al., 369; Minter v. Mower, 650; Sanders v. Aston,
The combination of two or more things old in themselves, if a
better instrument or machine, or if a better or more useful result
in any manufacture arises from such new combination, constitutes
a new invention, which may be secured by letters patent.-Boulton
and Watt v. Bull, 117; Dollond's Case, 28; Hill v. Thompson et al.,
369; Minter v. Wells et al., 622; Bovill et als. v. Moore, 320
If up to a certain point the parts have been similarly combined,
and the patentee only starts from that point of combination, and
claims the whole combination, the patent will be void.—Bovill et als.
v. Moore, 320
When a patent is taken for the combination of several things,
the use of any of them separately or in partial combination will not
be an infringement, though a slight departure would be a fraud.—
Hill v. Thompson et als., 369
CONFIRMATION, See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83"-
If the grounds on which the patent is granted fail, they being the
consideration to the Crown for the grant, the patent is bad.-Bain-
bridge v. Wigley, 270; Brunton v. Hawkes, 405
The specification is to be read in connexion with the patent, and
with a view to support it.-Russell v. Cowley et als., 531
The description of the invention is to be looked for in the speci-
fication, and not in the patent.-Arkwright v. Nightingale, 38
The construction of a patent and a specification is with the Court.
The novelty, the utility, the sufficiency of the specification, and
all matters of evidence, are for the jury. The meaning of the speci-
fication is with the Court.-Hill v. Thompson et als., 369
The terms of the specification must be interpreted according to
the state of knowledge at the time. The term, “other substances,"
must be understood as substances ejusdem generis, and in use at the
time, and which practical men would employ.-Crossley v. Beverley,
480
If the specification, on its fair construction, excludes the use of a
mandril, it will be presumed that the patentee does not claim the
use of that instrument.-Russell v. Cowley et als., 531
The specification should be read, consistently with the fair import
of language, to make the claim co-extensive with the actual dis-
covery.-Haworth v. Hardcastle et als., 597
COSTS, See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83"-
In an action for infringement the damages are generally only
nominal.-Lewis v. Marling, 475
The date of letters patent cannot be altered.-Ex parte Beck, 37;
Ex parte Koops, 176.-See "Statute 11 Hen. VI., c. 1.
A disclaimer may be made after judgment of a Court of Law
adverse to the validity of the patent.-Derosne v. Fairrie et al., 664.—
See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83, s. 1."
The changing the direction in which an instrument acts in a
machine may be secured by patent.-Lewis et al. v. Davis, 471
Are not required in a specification, if the invention can be made
clear without them.-Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 117
If drawings or figures enable a workman to construct an improve-
ment, it is as good as any written description.-Brunton v. Ĥawkes
el al., 410; Bloxam et als. v. Else, 434
A drawing may be put into a witness's hand to ascertain whether
it represents a machine which he knew in use before a patent.-The
King v. Haddan, 448
Copy of enrolment of letters patent made evidence by Statute 13
Eliz., c. 6–17.
The enrolment of a specification to letters patent will not be dis-
pensed with when it is desired to prevent the invention becoming
known abroad.-Ex parte Koops, 176
Clerical errors in the enrolment of a specification may be altered
by the Master of the Rolls.-In re Redmund, 463
Of a specification is good when the patent being dated on the 10th
of May, with one month to enrol-the specification was enrolled
on the 10th of June.-Watson v. Pears, 268
In letters patent may be corrected after the sealing thereof.-In
re Sir K. Digby, 27
Errors in the enrolment of a specification may be corrected by the
Master of the Rolls.-In re Redmund, 463
A defendant, being a licensee, is estopped from pleading that the
patent is not valid by reason of want of novelty, or that no specifi-
cation had been enrolled, when the deed of license recites matters
to the contrary of such pleas.-Bowman v. Taylor et al., 654
But if the plaintiff takes issue on such pleas, in place of demurring
to them, though the pleas are bad, the judge at the trial, must admit
evidence to prove the pleas.-Bowman v. Rostron et als., 662
In an action of covenant on articles of agreement which simply
recited that the plaintiffs were assignees of letters patent, the
defendant, being a licensee, is not estopped from denying the
novelty of the invention.-Hayne et al. v. Maltby, 113
A witness cannot speak to the contents of a document unless the
document be put in evidence.-Bloxam and others v. Else, 434
When a second patent is taken for improvements on the invention
described under a previous patent, the first patent must be put in
evidence by the plaintiff in an action for infringing the second
patent. But should the Title of the patent not refer to the previous
patent, this evidence is not necessary.-Lewis et als. v. Davis, 471
The plaintiff must give evidence of the sufficiency of the specifi-
|