A patent was granted for "A machine for an expeditious and correct mode of giving a fine edge to knives, razors, scissors, and other cutting instruments." The specification described the machine arranged for sharpening knives, and other cutting instruments, where the sharpening took place on both sides, but gave no instructions as to how scissors were to be sharpened; and the machine, as shown, would not sharpen scissors; nor did the specification show how a fine edge was to be obtained; only files being shewn and described, which would not give a fine edge to razors, &c. It was held, that the specification was insufficient, and the patent bad.

Ford, Beeston, v.

35 2Salk., 447; Holt, 475; Comb., 84; Dav. P. C., 36; Webs. R., 35.

434

103

664

488

3 C. and P., 611.

NAMES OF CASES.

xiii

Names of Cases.

tures, in place of gunpowder. The spe-
cification described the detonating matter
preferred, and also explained how the
locks were to be constructed in order to
discharge the mixture, so as to ignite
the charges in the fire-arms.

The specification disclaimed any no-
velty in the chemical preparations of
detonating mixtures, and the patentee
confined his claim to "the use and ap-
plication thereof to the purposes of
artillery and fire-arms," in the manner
described.
It was contended that it was
not a manufacture within the Statute.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott directed the
jury that, if the invention was new, it
was the proper subject for a patent; and
if several simultaneously discovered the
same thing, the party first communicat-
ing it to the public, if under a patent, is
entitled to the benefit of it. It is not
necessary that the patentee should be
the only inventor; it is sufficient, if the
patentee be the first to introdnce the in-
vention.

Fox, ex parte

A patent arrived at the Great Seal, and was opposed, on the ground that it was supposed, by a previous patentee, that the invention would interfere with a previous grant. Held, that that was not sufficient reason for stopping a patent. If the petitioners had invented certain improvements upon an engine for which a patent had been granted, and those improvements could not be used without the original engine, at the end of the first grant, the petitioners I could make use of their patent. They would have no right to make use of the others' invention till that time.Per Lord Eldon.

Fussell, The King, v..

G

274 1 V. and B., 67; Webs. R., 431 n.

449

Names of Cases.

H

Hadden, The King, v.

Hague, Hullett, v..

Hall v. Boot

The invention under this patent consisted of causing lace to pass through a flame of gas, in order to singe off the projecting fibres. It was shewn and admitted, that other flames had been used for like purposes; and it was objected, that that being the state of the manufacture at the date of the patent, the invention described was not a new manufacture, such as could be protected by patent. It was held, that no man could tell that gas would do for the purpose till he tried; and that a man who tried and succeeded in so improving a manufacture, was entitled to a patent.

Hardcastle, Bramah, v.

The invention proposed to be secured by this patent consisted of a mode of boiling worts, so as to preserve the aroma or essential oil of the hop. The invention, on the trial, was shown to be old, and the patent was declared void.

Hare, Taylor, v.

Harford et al, Hare, v.

Harmer v. Playne.

The patent in this case was granted for improvements in machinery, secured by previous letters patent. It was objected, that the specification did not show what the new parts claimed were, but described the machinery complete. It was contended, on application to dissolve an injunction, that the second specification was bad; it ought either to have shown the improvements separately, or have stated what the improvements were. It was ruled, that the public having permitted a reasonably

NAMES OF CASES.

XV

Names of Cases.

long and undisputed possession under
colour of the patent, the Court has
thought upon the fact of that possession
proved against the public that there is
less inconvenience in granting the in-
junction until the legal question can be
tried, than in dissolving it, at the hazard
that the grant of the Crown may, in
the result, prove to have been valid.
The trial being had, it was determined
that the patentee had sufficiently de-
scribed his invention. The public could
ascertain by comparing the old specifi-
cation and the new specification, what
was claimed under the new patent.

Hawkes et al, Brunton, v.
Haworth v. Hardcastle and others

In this case the patent was for machinery for drying fabrics, and consisted of a new combination of parts, all the parts being old. The machinery was so arranged that it would cause the fabrics previously wound on to a roller, to be unwound therefrom at intervals, so as to cause the fabric to hang in loops over a series of rails, and then to take the fabrics up when dry. It was objected that the defendant did not infringe, because he, at a sale of the patentee's effects under bankruptcy, purchased several of the parts, and added other parts, which were different from those described by the patent, and omitted to use other parts described under the pa

tent.

The jury at the trial found that the invention was a new combination, and useful for hanging out to dry, but not useful in some cases for taking up the fabrics when dry. They also found that ruled, that the finding of the jury suffiwas infringed. The Court ciently supported the patent. It was not necessary that the invention should be useful in every case.

the patent

Hayne et al v. Maltby

The defendant worked under license of the plaintiffs in using a patented invention, and the declaration alleged as a breach, that the defendant was using more machines than were licensed. The defendant pleaded, amongst other things, that the patentee was not the first in