Method of Obtaining Letters Patent. See Application, p. 33. Minor. Joint patent granted to, p. 277 (a). Misleading Specification. See under Specification, pp. 436 to 445. Misrepresentation in Specification will avoid the patent, pp. 436 (i), 437 (j). Model, making patent machine as, no infringement, p. 156 (t) public user of invention by exhibition of, pp. 232 (ƒ), 242 (d), 265 (n), 266 (s) to be supplied to South Kensington if required, Patents Act, 1883, sect. 42, p. 220. PATENTS ACT, 1883, Sect. 42. The Department of Science and Art may at any time require a patentee to furnish them with a model of his invention on payment to the patentee of the cost of the manufacture of the model; the amount to be settled, in case of dispute, by the Board of Trade. Monopolies, Statute of. See p. 491 Construction of, pp. 492 (b), 534 (n). Mortgagee of patent need not be joined as plaintiff in action for infringement, p. 290 (e). National policy is not a ground for refusing to grant an injunction, p. 340 (b). New Trial. See Practice, pp. 378, 379. New Use, application to. See under Subject Matter, pp. 522 to 532. Notices, of objections. See Practice, pp. 299 to 318. of intention to exhibit. See Rule 15, p. 94. Novelty of Invention, Novelty generally, need not be new out of England, p. 222 (u), (v), (x) method of effecting a known object, p. 225 (ƒ) of application, p. 226 (i) improvement and discovery, pp. 224 (e), 230 (z) discovery without disclosure, pp. 224 (e), 233 (h), 235 (j), 272 (h) greater perfection of result, an indication of, p. 499 (s) prior user in England will invalidate Scotch patent, pp. 225 (g), 130 (v) but prior user in Natal will not invalidate English patent, p. 227 (») largely increased sale is evidence of, p. 228 (s) alleged anticipation should be such as the patent if valid would prohibit, p. 227 (p) in analogous chemical process, p. 227 (1). Want of, in a Part of an Invention, when that part is material, pp. 228 (v), 230 (a) immaterial, p. 229 (x) when one patent includes several inventions, p. 228 (w) in subsidiary invention, p. 231 (d) when advantages only claimed, p. 232 (e). Public Use, meaning of, pp. 235 (j), (1), 236 (n), 242 (e) by exhibition of a model, pp. 232 (ƒ), 242 (d), 266 (s) by experiments. See pp. 261 to 265 by sale. See pp. 265 to 267 when accidental, pp. 233 (g), 238 (r) of abandoned invention, pp. 235 (7), 241 (z), 262 (e) need not continue to date of patent, pp. 235 (1), 236 (m), 262 (e) in a private place, p. 236 (m), (m*) by what number of persons, immaterial, p. 236 (m) without sale, pp. 240 (s), 266 (t), (u) manufacture of patent article by inventor prior to grant, pp. 234 (i), 238 (7), 242 (e) by using the invention on a tricycle, p. 240 (u) need not be generally known, p. 241 (y). Secret Use-pp. 242 and 243. Publication in a Book or Specification between date of patent and specification, p. 244 (j) in foreign book deposited in British Museum, pp. 244 (k), 258 (q) published in England, p. 245 (m) abroad and sent to England, pp. 247 (u), 250 (a) need not be sold, p. 250 (a) single copy of, kept in obscurity, p. 245 (q) whether written or printed, p. 245 (g) in an abandoned provisional specification, pp. 248 (y), 258 (p), (r) where prior specification is insufficient, p. 250 (c) of an imported invention, p. 246 (t) need not have been seen by patentee, p. 245 (7) description should be sufficient to produce patented article, pp. 245 (0), 247 (v), (w), 248 (x), 249 (z), 250 (b), (c), 251 (d), (e) where prior specification is insufficient, pp. 251 (ƒ), 257 (m) and never brought into operation, p. 257 (0) what sufficient evidence of, p. 253 (h) in an official report, p. 254 (i) need not be used by public, p. 254 (i) in German journal in library of Patent Office, pp. 256 (k), 259 (u) whether description must be sufficient to sustain a patent, pp. 251 (ƒ), 257 (m), 260 (a) may be by a drawing alone without description, p. 259 (x). Publication by Experiments— when abandoned, pp. 233 (h), 262 (e), 266 (s), 275 (u) when unsuccessful, p. 262 (e), (ƒ), (g) by patentee to test utility of invention, pp. 261 (d), 263 (i), (j) or his agent, p. 242 (d) after utility established, pp. 234 (), 237 (p), 263 (i) by making samples, p. 264 (m) by making a model, p. 265 (n). Publication by Sale, in a single instance, pp. 265 (p), (1), 266 (v) for a foreign market, pp. 265 (p), 266 (s) of a patent for a process, p. 266 (r) where article made as a sample, p. 266 (w) by a secret process, p. 237 (0) offering for sale, p. 266 (t), (u), (w) A Question for the Jury-pp. 267 and 268 (b) Novelty Generally. (u) HASTINGS' PATENT. [1567] A patent was granted to Mr. Hastings "in consideration that he brought in the skill of making frisadoes, as they were made in Harlem and Amsterdam, beyond the seas, being not used in England, that therefore he should have the sole trade of the making and selling thereof for divers years, charging all other subjects not to make any frisadoes in England during that time, by pain to forfeit the same frisadoes by them made, and to forfeit also 100l., the one moiety thereof to the Queen's Majesty, the other to Mr. Hastings." This patent being infringed by certain clothiers, Mr. Hastings "exhibited his English bill in the Exchequer Chamber against them; where, upon the examination of the clause, it appeared that the same clothiers did make baies very like to Mr. Hastings' frisadoes, and that they used to make them before Mr. Hastings' patent; for which cause they were neither punished, nor restrained from making their baies like to his frisadoes." (Noy, R. 182; 1 Web. P. C. 6.) (v) MATTHEY'S PATENT. [Eliz.] By this patent "it was granted unto him the sole making of knives with bone hafts and plates of lattin, because, as the patent suggested, he brought the first use thereof from beyond seas. Yet nevertheless, when the wardens of the Company of Cutlers did show before some of the council and some learned in the law, that they did use to make knives before, though not with such hafts, that such a light difference or invention should be no cause to restrain them, whereupon he could never have benefit of this patent, although he laboured very greatly therein." (Noy, R. 178; i Web. P. C. 6.) (w) HUMPHREY'S PATENT. A patent was granted to Humphrey "for the sole and only use of a sieve or instrument for melting of lead, supposing that it was of his own invention, and therefore prohibited all others to use the same for a time. And because others used the like instrument in Derbyshire, contrary to the intent of his patent, therefore he did sue them in the Exchequer Chamber, by English bill. In which Court the question was, whether it was newly invented by him, whereby he might have the sole privilege, or else used before at Mendiff, in the west country, which if it were there before used, then the Court were of opinion that he should not have the sole use thereof." (Noy, R. 183; 1 Web. P. C. 7.) (x) DARCY v. ALLIN. [1602] "Where any man doth bring any new trade into the realm, or any engine tending to the furtherance of a trade, that never was used before, the king may grant to him a monopoly patent." (Noy, R. 182; 1 Web. P. C. 6.) Public user of an invention in England is sufficient to invalidate a patent subsequently granted for the same invention in Scotland. (Web. P. C. 45 and 451, n.) (z) LIARDET v. JOHNSON. N. P. [1778] The general question is, whether the invention was known and in use before the patent. (Bull, N. P. 76; 1 Web. P. C. 53; 1 Carp. P. C. 35.) (a) R. v. ARKWRIGHT. N. P. [1785] Scire facias to repeal letters patent granted to the defendant. The specification described various parts of machinery, but no complete machine, and the defendant did not point out what parts were new. Buller, J., left the following questions to the jury:"First, whether this invention is new? secondly, if it be new, whether it was invented by the defendant?" After commenting upon the evidence, his lordship said: "Thus the case stands as to the several component parts of this machine; and if, upon them, you are satisfied that none of them were inventions unknown at the time this patent was granted, or that they were not invented by the defendant, upon either of these points the prosecutor is entitled to your verdict." (Dav. P. C. 61; 1 Web. P. C. 64; 1 Carp. P. C. 53.) (b) HUDDARD v. GRIMSHAW. N. P. [1803] Action for the infringement of a patent for a new mode of making cables and other cordage. Ellenborough, C.J., in addressing the jury, said: "In inventions of this sort, and every other through the medium of mechanism, there are some materials which are common, and cannot be supposed to be appropriated in the terms of any patent. There are common elementary materials to work with in machinery, but it is the adaptation of those 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 that species of invention, which, protected by the king's patent, ought to continue to the person the sole right of vending; but if, prior to the time of his obtaining a patent, any part of that which is of the substance of the invention has been communicated to the public in the shape of a specification of any other patent, or is a part of the service of the country so as to be a known thing, in that case he cannot claim the benefit of his patent." . . . If, in his specification, the patentee "appropriates more than his own, he cannot avail himself of the benefit of it. . . . And if he states that which of itself is not new, but old and known to the world, though it was unnecessary for him to do so, having done so, he has overstepped his right, and has included in his invention that which is not his invention; in that respect his patent would be void." (Dav. P. C. 278; 1 Web. P. C. 86; 1 Carp. P. C. 225.) (c) MANTON v. MANTON. N. P. [1815] Action for the infringement of two patents, one for a hammer upon an improved construction, for the locks of fire-arms; the other, for "an improvement in double-barrelled guns." Gibbs, C.J., in directing the jury, said: "In order to support a right to the exclusive enjoyment of any invention, it is necessary that the party who takes out the patent should show that the invention is new, that it was unknown to the trade and to the world before, that it is not only new, but that it is useful to the public; and it is necessary likewise that he should show that he has accurately explained the nature of his invention in his specification, separating that which is new from that which is old. (Dav. P. C. 343.) . . If any one man made these locks, and was in possession of the secret of making them upon the same principle as Joseph Manton's locks, there would be an end of the patent." (Ib. 353.) (d) R. v. CUTLER. Sci. fas. [1816] Scire facias to repeal the defendant's patent for "improvements in firegrates or stoves." The specification, after describing the stove, claimed as the invention, the construction of stoves in such manner as that the fuel necessary to supply the fire shall be introduced from beneath, either in a perpendicular, or in an oblique direction. Ellenborough, C.J., was of opinion that the evidence showed grates to have been constructed, prior to the patent, on a principle identical with that described in the specification; that the patentee, by his claim, had confined himself to that principle, which was not new, and that, therefore, the patent could not be supported, although the application of the principle, as described in the specification, was new. (1 Stark. 354; 1 Web. P. C. 76; 1 Carp. P. C. 351.) (e) HILL v. THOMPSON. [1818] Dallas, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, said: "This, like every other patent, must undoubtedly stand on the ground of improvement, or discovery. If of improvement, it must stand on the ground of improvement invented; if of discovery, it must stand on the ground of the discovery of something altogether new; and the patent must distinguish and adapt itself accordingly. If the patent be taken out for discovery, when the alleged discovery is merely an addition or improvement, it is scarcely necessary to observe that it will be altogether void. . . . If the discovery claimed were known and made use of before, the patent is at an end. Now, with reference to this particular case, it may be proper shortly to consider, what novelty and discovery are deemed to be; and when I say novelty and discovery, I mean to distinguish between those terms; for it is not enough to have discovered what was unknown to others before, if the discovery be confined to the knowledge of the party having made it; but it must have been communicated, more or less, or it must have been more or less made use of, so as to constitute discovery, as applied to subjects of this sort. The case of Dollond has been |