Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Names of Cases.

Reported

Page

Where reported in

'other works.

662 | 2 A. and E., 278 ;

4 N. & M., 264.

nor could it be pleaded that the plaintiff

was not the first and true inventor. Bowman v. Rostron et als . . . .

In this case the defendants had taken a license from the plaintiff to use an invention, for which letters patent had been granted; the license recited that the plaintiff “had invented certain improvements,” &c. The action was to recover the patent rents due under the license. The defendants pleaded that the invention was not new, and that the plaintiff was not the true and first inventor; the plaintiff joined issue on these pleas. It was held that, notwithstanding the pleas were bad under the recital, as issue was joined, evidence

must be received on the pleas. Bowman, Collinge, v....... Braithwaite et al, Cochrane et al, v. .

660

492

168 Holroyd, 81.

Bramah v. Hardcastle

The patent was for a water-closet upon a new construction. It was objected that the patent, being taken for the whole water-closet, and as only the arrangement of some of the parts was new, the patent was void. Held, that unlearned men look at the specification, and suppose everything new that is there. If the whole be not new, it is hanging terrors over them. The question for a jury in respect to an infringement, is, whether in principle it is the same; the differing in shape is not material.

305

28 Rep. Arts, 2d

S., 60; Cit. 3
Swan., 264.

Bramson, Morris, v. . . . . . . Brown v. Moore et als

In an application to dissolve an injunction, it was objected that the specification was not set out in the bill. Held, that the specification being enrolled in Chancery, it was not necessary to set it out in the bill; all that was necessary, was to mention that there was a specifi

cation.—Per Lord Eldon. Brunton v. Hawkes et al . . . .

405 | 4 B. and A., 541;

7 D. & R., 703; 410 37 Rep. Arts

20 S., s. 105

The patent was taken out for three things-ships' anchors, windlasses, and chain cables. The patent was held to be bad, because the mode of making

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Cameron v. Gray . . . . . . .

In an action for the infringement of a patent, the venue being laid in Middlesex, the venue will not be changed upon the common affidavit. It cannot be said that the cause of action arose wholly at Northumberland, when the subject of the action, the patent, is at Westminster.

-Per Lord Kenyon. Campion v. Benyon . . . . . .

The patent was granted for a method of making sail-cloth, without any starch whaterer. The specification showed the invention to consist of making sail-cloth by spinning the yarn, and then doubling the yarn and throwing it back, so that each warp would consist of two spunyarns twisted together. Previously two yarns were used, stuck or dressed together with starch, for each warp. It was contended the patent was bad, as it tended to mislead, and sail-cloth had before been made without starch. Held, that the patent was bad; the invention did not, as described in the title, depend on dispensing with the use of starch. If the specification be different from the title in the patent, the whole is void. The claim in a specification being more exteosive than the extent or novelty of the invention, the patent is bad. From the title, a person would imagine the invention to depend on the absence of starch. If the patentee did not intend to claim as new, the dispensing with starch, he should have disclaimed it. A patent for an improvement on an old discovery may be sustained. A patent, which, in addition to the merit of * the improvement, claims the merit of the old discovery, can never be permitted to vest in the patentee an exclu. sive privilege for the old discovery.-Per

[blocks in formation]

493

A patent was granted in 1818 for steam-boiler furnaces. An application was made in 1830 for an injunction to restrain the defendants from using the invention. It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiffs had only within six months applied their invention to any steamboiler; and the defendants, who also had a patent, had applied their mode of construction for eighteen months. Under these circumstances, the injunction was refused, the costs being reserved till after a trial at law.-Per Lord Lyndhurst.

In the trial at law, it was ruled by Lord Tenterden that the plaintiffs must be non-suited, as the mode of acconplishing the result by the defendants, was different from that of the plaintiffs. The Court, on an application, directed a new trial, thinking that his Lordship should not have so ruled : it was a question for a jury, whether a patent was infringed. In the second trial, Lord Denman stated to the jury, that the specification did not confine the invention

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The patent was taken for a means of drying paper by steam cylinders, and the improvement consisted in conducting the newly-made paper by a woven fabric to the steam cylinders. The specification having described the nature of the fabric preferred, wbich consisted of a linenwarp and woollen-weft, also stated that the "cloth may be made of any suitable material.” The evidence shewed, that before the specification, the patentee had tried several fabrics for the purpose, but none had answered except the one made of linen and wool. Held, that the patent was bad, the specification misleading the public.- Per Mr. Justice Bayley.

If a person happened not to have a cloth made of linen-warp and woollenweft, he would have tried some other, and have failed. The patentee has not fully and fairly exposed all he knew.Per Lord Tenterden.

A person drawing a specification, knowing that a certain material will not answer, is bound so to word the specification, as to prevent parties trying experiments. - Per Mr. Justice

Bayley.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Reported

Names of Cases.

Page

Where reported in

other works.

[blocks in formation]

Crossley v. Beverley . .....

The patent was taken for improved gas apparatus, and various parts of the apparatus used in manufacturing gas and transınitting it to the consumer, were described. A very valuable part of the invention consisted of an apparatus for measuring gas, called a "gasmeter," and the peculiarity of the invention consisted in the employment of a wheel formed with curved vanes, which were immersed in water; the gas was introduced under the vanes successively, through the hollow axis of the wheel, which caused the vanes to rise above the water, the gas filling the compartments formed between the curved vanes and the water's surface. Subsequently another person made material improvements in the gas-meter, by dispensing with the hollow axis, and simply using a fixed bent pipe for introducing the gas, no patent was taken for the improvemerts, and the plaintiff afterwards worked according to the improvements thus made by another. The defendant was proceeded against for infringing the gas-meter, and several objections were taken to the patent and specification; one being, that the invention in its original form was not useful, and to make it useful the invention of another person was brought to bear. It was objected, that the part of the patent which related to making gas was not applicable when using oil, and on the other hand, it was shown, that oil was only then just being brought into use for making gas. It was ruled, that “other substances," coupled with the words“ pit-coal,” mean other substances --ejusdem generis. In a specification, a person must be considered to be speaking of things as they were known at the time; it is not to be expected that he should have the gift of prophesy.--Per Lord Tenterden.

A specification for a gas apparatus not mentioning a condenser, does not exclude its use, if a workman would know that its use is necessary. A patentee improving his invention after the date of the patent, and before enrolling his specification, is required to introduce the improvements. A patentee must describe his invention according to the best information at the time of the specification; the six months are allowed to mature the invention.- Per

« ZurückWeiter »