It

of those bubbles by which, to the disgrace of the present age, a few projectors have obtained the money of a great number of ignorant and credulous persons, to the ruin of those dupes and their families, and by which a passion for gambling has been excited that has been most injurious to commerce and to the morals of the people; of which any one must discover from reading these instruments, that the parties to them must be fully informed. cannot be too well known that there is no place for persons engaged in such transactions in Courts appointed for the decision of civil cases. Although the Statute 6 Geo. I. c. 18, is in part repealed, the Common Law relating to such schemes is expressly reserved by the repealing Statute (6 Geo. IV. c. 91); and no one doubts that if it can be shown, as it easily may, that such schemes are mere traps and injurious to the public welfare, the forming of them is an indictable offence at Common Law."

The late Statute, however, has lightened Patent Law of a tremendous load,' and effectually swept away all doubt as to the applicability of this species of capital, by expressly enacting," that "it shall be lawful for a larger number than twelve persons hereafter to have a legal and beneficial interest in Letters-patent."

Some circumstances of the inventor are however noticed by the Law in spite of the rule which directs Patent rights to be viewed only from the public side. By the Patent Law Amendment Act" provision is made for securing to the estate of the inventor the fruit of his exertions in the event of his dying during the interval between application and the grant of Letters-patent. Another instance in which the Law takes cognizance of the circumstances of the Patentee, notwithstanding

1 Duvergier v. Fellowes (1828), 2 M. & P. 384; 10 B. & Cr. 826; 1 Cl. & Fin. 89; Protheroe v. May, 5 M. & W. 675; Bloxam v. Elsee (1825), 1 C. & P. 564; 6 B. & Cr. 169; 1 D. & Ry. 215. n 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 21.

15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 36.

I

Morgan v.
Seaward.

its general adherence to larger grounds, is that in which the Patentee has endeavoured to keep the invention secret until secured by a Patent. Disclosure in confidence and under an injunction of secrecy, although the means of laying the matter fully before the public, will not invalidate the Patent either as regards the subject matter or the inventor.

In Smith v. Dickenson" the defendant agreed, "under the penalty of breach of honour and 1,000l.," not to take any undue advantage of a communication made to him of an invention for which the plaintiff intended to take out a Patent, but notwithstanding obtained a Patent for it in his own name. It was afterwards agreed that the Patent should remain in the Defendant's name upon certain terms, which terms, however, the defendant subsequently repudiated, insisting on the invention as his own. In an action of assumpsit the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 3007., the defendant agreeing to assign the Patent to the plaintiff for the remainder of the term at the defendant's own expense. The Court of Common Pleas was of opinion that the word "penalty" in the agreement effectually prevented them from considering the sum mentioned as liquidated damages.

In Morgan v. Seaward it appeared, that, two months before the date of the Patent, two pair of the wheels were made for the plaintiff (the assignee of the Patent) at his own expense in his own factory, under the directions of the Patentee, who enjoined secrecy on the workmen concerned. The disclosure of the secret was held not to invalidate the Patent, there being sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff was at the time connected with the inventor

m Smith v. Dickenson (1804), Lord Alvanley, 3 B. & P. 630, C. B.; Morgan v. Seaward, 2 M. & W. 544 (confidential sale), Parke, B., Exch.; Bentley v. Fleming (1844), 1 C. & K. 587.

n (1804) 3 Bos. & P. 630 (spring for saddlegirths), C. B. (1837) Ex. paddlewheel, 2 M. & W. 562, Parke, B. Bentley v. Fleming (1844), card machine, 1 C. & K. 587.

See also

and designed to take a share of the Patent. "A disclosure of the nature of the invention to such a person and under such circumstances," said Parke, B., "must surely be deemed private and confidential."

In the event of simultaneous applications the decision Rival applicaof the claims is left to the law officer of the Crown.P

tions.

ventions.

As to property in an invention before it has become Incomplete incomplete, the Law refuses to interfere. A contract to execute a work of invention cannot, it is clear, be enforced, although it may be negatively withheld from execution for other parties. An inventor may, however, maintain an action for breach of an agreement' respecting an invention for which he proposes to take out a Patent.s

gagee.

The principal interests in Letters-patent, subordinate Assignee, to that of the Patentee, are those of the assignee, the licencee, mortlicencee, and mortgagee of a Patent. On the principle Limitation of of the illegality of general monopoly and the legal recog- the rights crenition of the rights of every subject to employ his capital grant. and his labour as he will, the rights created by Letterspatent for inventions are limited to those expressly stated in the deed of grant. The grant of the monopoly is to the inventor, "his executors, administrators and assigns," or, "such others as they shall agree with;" and pro vides, "that they and no others from time to time and at all times hereafter during the term of years herein expressed shall and may lawfully make, use, exercise and vend" the said invention.

The New Act imports a fresh, and, it is to be hoped, Registration.

Re Griffith's Patent; Re Saunder's Patent (1845), atmospheric

railway tubes, 5 L. T. 141.

a Clark v. Price, 2 Wils. C. C. 157.

See, as to a somewhat similar case, Lumley v. Wagner (1852), contract to sing, 1 De G. M'N. & G. 604, overruling Kemble v. Kecn, 6 Sim. 333; and Kimberley v. Jennings, 6 Sim. 340.

Smith v. Dickenson (1804), 3 B. & P. 630.

Duvergier v. Fellowes (1828), 10 B. & C. 829.

very beneficial feature into Patent Law, by the provision, that "there shall be kept at the office for filing Specifications in Chancery a 'Register of Proprietors,' wherein shall be entered, in such manner as the Commissioners shall direct, the assignment of any Letters-patent, or of any share or interest therein, any licence under Letterspatent, and the district to which such licence relates, with the name or names of any person or persons having any share or interest in such Letters-patent or licence, the date of his or their acquiring such Letters-patent, share and interest, and any other matter or thing relating to or affecting the proprietorship in such Letters-patent or licence and a copy of any entry in such book, properly certified, shall be received in evidence in all Courts and proceedings, and shall be primâ facie proof of the assignment of such Letters-patent, or share or interest therein, or of the licence or proprietorship as therein expressed." Until such entry, the grantee is to be deemed the sole and exclusive proprietor of the Letters-patent, and of all the licences and privileges thereby given and granted. The efficiency of the Registration, to the principle of which so fair a trial is offered, will depend much upon the first decisions on contested cases, and the extent to which the Registry books are deemed conclusive evidence as to the property."

As an illustration of the value of an authoritative register of Patents easily accessible, a witness (Fothergill, Evid. 1433) before the Committee in 1851 stated, that he had found by searching that there had been fifteen Patents taken out since 1843 for the same thing. They were all with regard to the same principle, and some of them the same process of applying the principle.

15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 35.

*Subject to a stamp of five shillings. Erroneous entries in the Register may be expunged by an order of the Master of the Rolls of any of the Courts of Common Law in term time, or any judge thereof in vacation (15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 37).

See as to the somewhat analogous case of shipping, Er parte Yallop, 15 Ves. 60, where the registry books were held to be conclusive

deed or will.

A Patent is assignable by deed or will. If the Pa- Assignable by tentee die intestate, it is assets in the hand of the executor. It may also be seized and sold in execution by the sheriff under a fieri facias."

The terms of the grant prescribe no peculiar form of alienation of the property it creates, but places, to a certain extent, those whom the Patentee "agrees with," on the same footing with himself. The technical rule cited. by some writers," that things, which can only be granted or created by deed, can only be assigned by deed, is clearly inapplicable on analogy. Licences must, by the provisions of the letters, be under "the hand and seal" of the Patentee, and à fortiori it is argued, an assignment should be so too. If, however, the licence be by deed, the revocation of it should also be by deed.

The effect of Letters-patent is to put a prohibition. upon the public with respect to certain things, subject, however, to a proviso for relaxation by the Patentee of such prohibition in favour of such other "as he may agree with." The effect of a licence is to remove such prohibitions, so far as the licencee is concerned. To impose à priori any arbitrary conditions upon the contracts. for such relaxation, or to insist on any indefeasible virevidence of the property upon the policy, even against the claims of creditors upon a joint purchase and various acts of apparent ownership within the Bankrupt Act, 21 Jac. I. c. 19, § 11; Greswold v. Marsham (1684), 2 Cha. Ca. 170; and see Plowden's Impartial Thoughts upon the Beneficial Consequences of Inrolling (1799), p. 36.

Ex parte O'Reily (1790), Italian Opera, Lord Eldon, C., 1 Ves. jun. 118; Hesse v. Stevenson (1803), paper, 3 B. & P. 573.

a Webster on Patents (1841), Law and Practice, 23.

b Duvergier v. Fellowes, 10 B. & C. 829; Hindm (1846), 234.

c Power v. Walker (1814), copyright, 3 M. & S. 9.

Noy, 4; Winter v. Foweracres, 2 Rol. 39; Thompson v. Brown,

7 Taunt. 656.

e Hindm. 240-3.

f "A licence is not really assignable," says Jervis, C. J. (Bower v. Hodges (1853), 22 L. J., C. B., 198). "The assignment acts only as an estoppel between the parties."

May be sold in fi. ja.