of Patents. Infringement and excited very considerable discussion both in the courts of C. B. and K. B. The patent granted to James Watt, the sole benefit and advantage of making, exercising, and vending a certain invention, being a method by him invented, of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in fire engines. The specification began as follows:-"My method of lessening the consumption of steam, and consequently fuel, in fire engines, consists of the following principles." The specification then proceeded to state the addition of certain vessels called condensers, with some rules for their construction and application. The great question that was argued was upon the objection, that a patent could not be granted for a method or principle, but that it must be for a formed or organised machine, instrument, or manufacture. The Court of Common Pleas were equally. divided upon the subject, Mr. J. Rooke and the Lord C. J. Eyre, being in favour of the patent, and Mr. J. Buller and Mr. J. Heath against it (a). The question soon afterwards was brought in another action upon the same patent under the consideration of the Court of King's Bench, the judges of which were unanimously of opinion in favour of the patent (b). It seems in this case to have been agreed by the judges on both sides of the question, that there could not be a patent for a mere principle or method; but those judges who were in favour of the validity of the patent, founded their opinion upon (a) Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. B. 463. the ground that for a principle so far embodied and Infringement connected with corporeal substances, as to be in a of Patents. condition to act and to produce effects in any art, trade, mystery, or manual occupation, there might be a patent. That there might be a patent for a new method of manufacturing or conducting chemical processes, or of working machinery so as to produce new and useful effects. That in the case before them, it was that for which the patent was granted; that it was not that the patentee had conceived an abstract notion that the consumption of steam in fire engines might be lessened, but that he had discovered a practical manner of doing it, and for that practical manner of doing it, had taken his patent. So in the case in the King's Bench, Mr. J. Grose observed, "I am inclined to think, that a patent cannot be granted for a mere principle; but I think, that although in words, the privilege granted is to exercise a method of making or doing any thing, yet if that is to be made or done by a manufacture, and the mode of making that manufacture is described, it then becomes in effect (by whatever name it may be called), not a patent for a mere principle, but for a manufacture; for the thing so made, and not merely for the principle upon which it is made." The construction of the word manufacture was ex. plained in a recent case, in the following luminous manner, by Lord C. J. Abbott. "The word 'manufacture' has been generally understood to denote either a thing made, which is useful for its own sake, and vendible as such, as a medicine, a stove, a telescope, Infringement and many others, or to mean an engine or instruof Patents. ment, or some part of an engine or instrument, to be employed, either in the making of some previously known article, or in some other useful purpose, as a stocking-frame, or a steam-engine for raising water from mines. Or it may perhaps extend also to a new process to be carried on by known implements or elements, acting upon known substances, and ultimately producing some other known substance, but producing it in a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or of a better or more useful kind. But no merely philosophical or abstract principle can answer to the word manufacture. Something of a corporeal and substantial nature, something that can be made by man from the matters subjected to his art and skill, or at the least, some new mode of employing practically his art and skill is requisite to satisfy this word. A person, therefore, who applies to the crown for a patent may represent himself to be the inventor of some new thing, or of some new engine or instrument. And in the latter case he may represent himself to be the inventor of a new method of accomplishing that object, which is to be accomplished by his new engine or instrument, as was the case of Watt's patent, in which he represented himself to be the inventor of a new method of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in fire engines; and by his specification he described certain parts to be used in the construction of fire engines. Or supposing a new process to be the lawful subject of a patent, he may represent himself to be the inventor of a new process, in which case it should seem that Infringement the word 'method' may be properly used as synony mous with process (a)." of Patents. new manu The expression used in the statute is new ma- Must be a nufacture. The grantee of the patent must there- facture. fore be the inventor. In an action brought by Mr. Tennant for an infringement of his patent for a bleaching liquor, a bleacher near Nottingham deposed, on the part of the defendant, that he had used the same means of preparing his bleaching liquor for five or six years prior to the date of the patent, and that the secret had been also known to his two partners and two servants, who were employed in preparing it; upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited (b). And it has been determined that the previous sale of the article, though by the inventor only, will make the patent void (c). It appears, however, that if it has not been pre- Manufacture viously brought into use, the circumstance of its will be con sidered new, though known be having been known, will not be a sufficient objection. Therefore, in the case on Dolland's object-glasses, fore, if not the question was, whether Dolland or Hall was the used. first and true inventor, within the meaning of the statute. Hall had first made the discovery in the closet, but as Dolland had been the first to make the invention public, his patent was confirmed (d). The words of the statute are new manufactures New, within the realm: it was therefore decided, in one known although of the first cases after the passing of the act, that abroad. (a) 2 B. & A. 349. (b) Tennant's case, Dav. on Pat. 429. (c) Wood v. Zimmer, 1 Holt, N. P. C. 58. Infringement though the invention may have been practised beof Patents. yond sea before, it is sufficient if it be new in England (a). May be for a compound article, For an ad dition to an invention already known. It is no objection to a mechanical or chemical discovery, that the articles of which it is composed were known and in use before, provided the compound article is new: but the patent. must be for the compound article. A new combination of old materials, as observed by Lord Ellenborough, so as to produce a new effect, is the subject of a patent. It is the adoption of these materials to the execution of any particular purpose that constitutes the invention and if the application of them be new, if the combination in its nature be essentially new; if it be productive of a new end and beneficial to the public, it is sufficient (b). But if the subject matter when compounded is not new, it will be no answer to the objection to it, that it is of better texture or finer quality than the one formerly produced (c). An addition to an invention already known may also be the subject of a patent. This was at first denied (d). It was said, that if the substance was in esse before, and a new addition was made to it, though that addition made the former more profitable; yet that it was not a new manufacture in law: that it was much easier to add than to invent, and that this was but to put a new button on an old coat. It has, however, been acknowledged, ever (a) Edgeberry v. Stephens, 2 Salk. 447. (b) Huddart v. Grimshaw, Dav. on Pat. 278, (d) Bircot's case, 3 Inst. 184. |