which will leave no doubt as to what the remuneration has been that he has received." (Ib. 85.)

(u) In re CLARK'S PATENT. [1870]

A petitioner, seeking the grace and favour of the Crown, in applying for an extension of the term of letters patent, is bound to bring his accounts before the committee in such a shape as to leave no doubt what the remuneration has been that he has received from the patent.

The petition for extension, and the accounts furnished by the petitioner (the patentee) not containing sufficiently full and accurate information in respect to the patent, or the remuneration received by him, the Judicial Committee declined to recommend a prolongation of the term.

The principle, where the statement of the remuneration received by the patentee, is on the face of the petition and accounts filed unsatisfactory, of adjudicating without reference to the merits of the invention, as acted on in Saxby's Patent, recognised. (7 Moo. P.C. C., N. S. 255.)

(v) In re HOUGHTON'S PATENT. [1871]

The statement of accounts furnished being prima facie satisfactory, the petitioners were allowed to prove the merits of the invention before going into the accounts. (7 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 309.)

Lord Justice James: "Their Lordships think that the cases of Saxby's Patent and Clark's Patent only go to this extent, that where there are special statements which show upon the face of the accounts, that the petitioners have, in fact, made very large profits by their invention, as was the fact in both those cases, such circumstance is sufficient for their Lordships at once to determine the application without going into the question of the merits of the invention." (Ib. 311.)

(w) In re WIELD'S PATENT. [1871]

Accounts of profits and loss filed by a patentee on his application for a prolongation of the term of letters patent being prima facie unsatisfactory, the Judicial Committee directed the question of accounts to be taken before considering the merits of the invention. As the accounts were not satisfactorily explained, the application for a prolongation was refused.

The difference between the sum for which a patentee has sold his patent and that which he has paid in buying it again cannot be allowed in the accounts as one of loss, but must be regarded as a mere commercial speculation. (8 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 300; L. R., 4 P. C. 89.)

(x) In re JOHNSON'S PATENT. [1871]

When the possession of the patent has brought to the patentee the power of commanding orders as a manufacturer, it is to be

taken into consideration in estimating the profits derived from the patent. (8 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 291.)

James, L.J., said: "It was suggested to their Lordships that they ought not to take into consideration any of the profits made in America, and reference was made to Poole's Patent. Their Lordships desire it to be understood that that case is not to be considered as laying down any general rule of law. Where the question to be considered is, whether an invention has been sufficiently remunerated or not, their Lordships must have regard to the remuneration which the invention has brought in to the patentee, or the person who claims the right of the patentee, whether it be in one country or another." (1b.)

(y) In re CARR'S PATENT. [1873]

Circumstances showing a want of adequate remuneration, an extension of the term of letters patent granted for six years.

In estimating the profits derived from the patent, the Judicial Committee will take into consideration a deduction from the profits of the patent for the personal expenses of the patentee for the exclusive devotion of his time in bringing the patent into practical operation and public notice. (L. R., 4 P. C. 539; 9 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 379.)

(z) In re JOHNSON'S AND ATKINSON'S PATENTS. [1873]

The Judicial Committee will not enter upon the accounts, in a case for extension, unless they have been filed in accordance with the rules. (L. R., 5 P. C. 87.) In Chatwood's patent the same course was followed. (lb. 89 (n).)

(a) In re ADAIR'S PATENT. [1881]

Where a patentee, whether English or foreign, has obtained foreign patents they should be stated, and the fullest information afforded as to the profits. A patentee applying for extension must be prepared, with the clearest evidence, of everything paid and received on account of the patent. (6 App. C. 176.)

(a*) CHILD'S PATENT. [1883]

Child obtained a patent in 1869 for improvements in the manufacture of bread, and in 1873 he assigned it to the Aerated Bread Company, of which he was chairman. In 1883 a central factory was started in London, and the inventor made a large profit by the rise in value of the shares of the company. Held, nevertheless, that he had not been sufficiently remunerated, and an extension for five years granted. (John. 214.)

(b) BAILEY'S PATENT. [1884]

The patentee wished to deduct £400 from the net receipts for his own remuneration, and a further sum as profits made by him as salesman; but as neither of these items appeared either on the accounts, or in the petition, their lordships refused to hear evidence about them. (Griff. 253; 1 O. R. 1.)

(c) BISCHOF'S PATENT. [1884.]

The patent being a meritorious one, for improvements in the means for the purification of water, and the accounts showing that the patentees had sustained a loss, extension was granted; and following the precedent of Spencer's Case, where the patent was also for purifying water, the period of extension was fixed at seven years. (10. R. 162.)

(d) DUNCAN AND WILSON'S PATENT. [1884]

A company, who have for a considerable time been assignees of the patent, and have also carried on a general business, are bound to keep their accounts so as to show, on an application for extension, what is to be applied to the patent business. There is no specific rule as to what proportion of the nett profits is to be attributed to general manufacturing profit, but two-thirds is too large a proportion. (Griff. 258; 1 O. R. 257; 1 T. L. R. 59.)

(e) HORSEY'S PATENT. [1884]

Where the petition was presented by a company, and it was alleged that neither Horsey nor the company had been adequately remunerated, but it appeared that, although the Companies Act had been literally complied with, no bona fide company in any commercial sense had been formed:-Held, that uberrima fides had not been maintained, and the petition was dismissed. (Griff. 261; 1 O. R. 225.)

(f) FURNESS'S PATENT. [1885]

Their lordships being unable to say "that the patentee had been inadequately remunerated," refused the extension. (Griff. 260; 2 O. R. 175.)

(9) DEACON'S PATENT. [1887]

In a petition for prolongation of a patent, where the patent rights have been transferred either in whole or in part to a company, it is essential that there should be deposited, not only the patentee's accounts of his profits, but, in order to test them, the account also of the company; but:-Held, that in this case, having regard to the great merit and usefulness and advantage to the public of the patentee's discovery (which was for an improved apparatus for measuring the flow of water in pipes), prolongation for three years should be granted. (4 0. R. 119; 3 T. L. R. 349.)

(h) BEANLAND'S PATENT. [1887]

No exceptional merit or utility being proved :-Held that, under all the circumstances, the remuneration was adequate. (4 L. T. R. 30; 4 O. R. 489.)

(i) NUSSEY AND LEACHMAN'S PATENT. [1889]

The net profit from a patent dated 1876 had been £4000, and in 1886 the patentees had obtained a patent for an improved machine, which had practically superseded the old machine.

Held, that in all the circumstances the remuneration was sufficient. (70. R. 22.)

Objections to Extension.

(i) In re WOODCROFT'S PATENT. [1841]

An invention as described in the specification, having succeeded at first to a limited extent for certain patterns and colours, but being inapplicable for the more elaborate patterns and brighter colours, until rendered so by means of certain improvements introduced from abroad, whereby it had become of great value, an application for the extension of the patent was refused. (1 Web. R. 740; 3 Moo. P. C. C. 171.)

(j) In re SIMISTER'S PATENT. [1842]

Semble, that negligence on the part of the patentee in restraining infringement is a ground of opposition. (1 Web. P. C. 724; 4 Moo. P. C. C. 164.)

(k) In re GALLOWAY'S PATENT. [1843]

The fact of great improvements having been made on the original invention, affords no objection to the extension of the term. (1 Web. P. C. 727.)

(1) In re BELL'S PATENT. [1846]

Application for the extension of a patent for manufacturing lucifer matches and boxes. The want of profit arose from two circumstances: first, a defect in the composition with which the match was loaded, which was not rectified until ten years after the date of the patent; secondly, great loss had resulted from a fire which occurred on the premises, and, when the premises were rebuilt, the petitioner discovered that no insurance office would insure the premises, and that the terms of his lease obliged him to insure, and that, consequently, he was obliged to build other premises. The profits did not commence till three years before the expiration of the patent, and at the time of petition were under £700. Extension refused. (10 Jur. 363.)

(m) In re PINKUS' PATENT. [1848]

The non-reduction of an invention to practical operation in such a manner as to contribute to the public service, and the absence of evidence to prove the probability of its being so reduced into practice in the future, coupled with the fact that the patentee has allowed his patent to be infringed without any assertion of his right at law, is a sufficient ground for refusing to prolong a patent. Lord Langdale, M.R., said: "Upon the effect, the utility and the merit of the patentee's contrivance, there has been considerable evidence, and also upon the supposed futility of that contrivance. What is perhaps the strongest evidence, or the evidence upon which the best reliance can be placed, is this: that, from the time when the patent was granted up to this present time, this plan has

not been reduced to practical operation in any way which has been at all calculated to contribute to the public service; at this time it does not appear, at least there is no evidence whatever to show, that, as to this plan the plan which is described in the first specification-there is now any, even the least, prospect of reducing it to practical operation." (12 Jur. 234.)

(n) In re PATTERSON'S PATENT. [1849]

A patentee entered into an agreement with certain parties to work his patent, but, owing to disputes between them, the invention was not prosecuted until a short time before the expiration of the term of the letters patent. In such circumstances, an extension was refused. (6 Moo. P. C. C. 469; 13 Jur. 593.)

(0) In re FOARDE'S PATENT. [1855]

After an assignee of a patentee had incurred considerable loss in carrying out a patent for a smoke prevention apparatus, an Act of Parliament passed to compel the owners of furnaces in the metropolis to construct some form of apparatus so as to consume their own smoke-Held, on an application for a prolongation of the letters patent, that though the Act of Parliament might, in effect, compel the use of the petitioner's patent, yet that such circumstance formed no objection to a renewal of the term of the letters patent, the merits of the invention and loss incurred in carrying it out being established. (9 Moo. P. C. C. 376.)

(p) In re CARDWELL'S PATENT. [1856]

A patentee agreed by deed with a public company to grant them exclusive licence to use his patented machine, and also covenanted with them to obtain, at the expiration of the term, a renewal of the patent for the same purpose. Under this deed the company alone used the patent. An application by the patentee for a prolongation refused, on the ground that the agreement was contrary to public policy, and repugnant to the provisions of the statute 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83, relating to prolongations of letters patent. (10 Moo. P. C. C. 488.)

(q) In re NORTON'S PATENT. [1863]

Where a patentee has intentionally delayed for a length of time attempting to put his invention into practice, an extension will not be recommended, unless he can show some reasonable excuse, such as want of funds, for the delay. (1 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 339.)

(r) In re GOUCHER'S PATENT. [1865]

In the objections filed by the objectors, the point was not taken, that the power given by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 69, s. 2, to recommend an extension of the term of letters patent for an invention, is exhausted when an extension has been once recommended, and new letters patent granted:-Held, that the objection could be raised on the application to fix a day for hearing of the petition. (2 Moo. P. C. C. 532.)

K