Contents of the Advertisements. imported. In a recent case," the application by the trustees of a joint stock company, as assignees, was refused, the invention (asphalte) having been in common use in France, and no great risk or expenditure incurred by the Patentee or his assignees in introducing it into public use. An objection was there taken by Jervis, C. J., on the ground of the number of the persons who would be beneficially interested in the renewal. The Petition should state the position and title of the Petitioners, the novelty and the utility of the invention, the purposes to which it may be applied, the circumstances which have prevented the inventor from carrying his invention into full effect, the expenditure of large capital in its completion, and the absence of remuneration to the Patentee or the Petitioners. The party intending to petition is required to give notice in the advertisements before mentioned of the day on which he intends to apply for a time to be fixed for the hearing of his Petition, which day shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the publication of the last of the advertisements to be inserted in the London Gazette, and that caveats must be entered on or before Notice to par- such day. Special notice seems to be required in the case of those particularly interested.P ties interested in the oppo sition. The object being simply to give those interested in the extension an opportunity of opposing, the Privy Council have very reasonably held that, in the event of the applicant (the Patentee) being resident abroad, and not himself carrying on the manufacture of his invention, adver n In re Claridge's Patent (1851), P. C., 7 Moo. 395. See also Russell's Patent, 2 Moo. 496; Hurdy's Patent (1849), railway axles, 6 Moo. 441; Bodmer's Patent, ibid. 468. • The notice of the intention to apply for an extension, and of the day on which application will be made to fix the hearing of the petition, are now included in one advertisement. (Web. P. R. 559, n.) P Re Southworth's Patent (1837), calico, &c. drying machinery, Web. P. R. 486, extended for five years. tisements in the neighbourhood of the licencees was a sufficient compliance with the requisition of the Act.a The Attorney-General on these occasions represents the government and the public generally. On an application, at the hearing, by the Lords of the Admiralty for leave to enter a caveat, on the ground that they wished a condition of great importance to the public to be inserted in the grant, the Judicial Committee refused to comply with that request, or to postpone the hearing. vertisement. In the case of Mackintosh's Patent, the Petition was Notice-adlodged 16th January, 1836, and on the usual application being shortly afterwards made for an early day to be fixed for the hearing, their Lordships intimated that as the English Patent did not expire until 17th June, 1837, the profits accruing in the meantime might materially affect the question of extension, and ordered the application to stand over for the present. In February, 1837, the application was renewed, the hearing was fixed for the 22nd April, but was before that date abandoned by the Petitioner. A question arose on the renewal of the application in 1837 as to the sufficiency of the notices given to the parties opposing the extension. Their Lordships declined giving any opinion, but intimated that the best plan would be to fix as late a day as convenient for the hearing, when the Petitioner should act as he should be advised as to proceeding on the old notices or issuing fresh. An application by the opposing party for the costs occasioned by the opposition on an affidavit of fact was granted. a Derosne's Patent (1844), sugar, 4 Moo. 416; Whylock's Patent (1846), figured carpets, 28 Lond. Journ. 449. In re Pettit Smith's Patent (1850), screw-propeller, 7 Moo. 133; In Re Wright's Patent (1838), bleaching, 13 Lond. Journ. 371. In re Pettit Smith's Patent (1850), screw-propeller, 7 Moo. 133. (1837), waterproof substances, granted 17th June, 1823, Web. P. R. 738. Р Practicepresentation. Opposition to the application. The petition must be presented at the Council Office, Whitehall, within one week from the insertion of the last of the advertisements," and must be accompanied with affidavits of advertisements having been inserted; the matters in the affidavits being open to be disputed at the hearing by the parties opposing. By a late rule," the applicant is required, not less than one week before the day fixed for hearing the application, to lodge at the Council Office four printed or written copies of his Specification, for the use of the Judicial Committee. The opposition to an extension of Letters-patent is open to any person interested.y Parties intending to oppose must enter a caveat at the Council Office on or before the day indicated in the advertisements for that purpose, and having entered such caveat, will be entitled " to have from the Petitioner four weeks' notice of the time appointed for the hearing. All persons entering such caveats will be entitled to be served with copies of the Petition, and no application to fix a time for hearing will be made without affidavit of such service. Parties served with Petitions must, within a fortnight after such service, lodge at the Council notice of the grounds of their objections to the granting of the prayers of such Petitions. Parties may have copies of all papers lodged in respect of any application under Stat. 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 83, at their own expense. b u Rule III., 18th November, 1835, Council Office, Whitehall. Dated Council Office, Whitehall, December 21st, 1835. * All Specifications and Drawings being published by the Commissioners under the new system, the remaining part of this Rule is superseded. y In re Gibson's Patent, re Shlumberger's Patent (1853), 1 Eq. R. 1; Exparte O'Reily (1790), L. C., 1 Ves. jun. 112. z Rule II., Council Office, Whitehall, 18th November, 1835. cation for ex tension. The period at which the steps should be taken for Period of appliobtaining extension is a point to be attended to. In the case of Mackintosh's Patent before alluded to, an application by the Patentee eighteen months before the expiration of his Patent was ordered to stand over as premature, while, in the case of Faulkner's Patent, the refusal to appoint a day for hearing the Petition was accompanied with remarks upon the lateness of the application (within two months from the expiration of the Patent). e effect." The proviso of the original Act stipulated,' that the "Made and application by Petition should be " made and prosecuted prosecuted with with effect" before the expiration of the term originally granted. The interpretation affixed to these words in the case of Bodmer's Patent," where the delay arose from causes wholly beyond the Petitioner's control (the want of a quorum in the Judicial Committee), resulted in such hardships to the Patentee that an Act was passed repealing the provision in that respect,' and enacting, that "it shall be lawful for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in all cases where it shall appear to them that any application for an extension of the term granted by any Letters-patent, the Petition for which extension shall have been referred to them for their consideration, has not been prosecuted with effect before the expiration of the said term from any other causes than the neglect or default of the Petitioner to entertain such application and to report thereon as by the said recited Act provided, notwithstanding the term originally granted in such Letters-patent may have expired before the hear d (1836) 17 June, 1823, waterproof substances, Web. P. R. 739. Extension not a matter of course. ing of such application; and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, if she shall think fit, on the report of the said Judicial Committee, recommending an extension of the term of such Letters-patent, to grant such extension, or to grant new Letters-patent for the invention or inventions' specified in such original Letters-patent, for a term not exceeding seven years after the expiration of the term mentioned in the original Letters-patent: provided always, that no such extension or new Letters-patent shall be granted if a petition for the same shall not have been presented, as by the said recited Act directed, before the expiration of the term sought to be extended, nor, in case of petitions presented after the 30th day of November, 1839, unless such petition shall be presented six calendar months at the least before the expiration of such term, nor in any case unless sufficient reason shall be shown, to the satisfaction of the said Judicial Committee, for the omission to prosecute with effect the said application by Petition before the expiration of the said term." m Great pains were taken by the Judicial Committee, at the earlier stage of their jurisdiction, to impress upon Patentees that the prolongation of Patents was to be regarded as anything but a matter of course, and that the cases in which an extension of the term would be made must be exceptional. A strong case, either as regards merit or success in the Patentee, or importance to the welfare, safety or convenience of the public in the invention, must in general be made out. A combination of these qualities, and loss from the manufacture of the invention, are the points usually pressed by the applicant." The uniform practice of the Court has been to I See 2nd Set of Rules under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83. 133. See Re Pettit Smith's Patent (1850), screw-propeller, 7 Moo. Re Erard's Patent (1835), pianoforte, Web. P. R. 559. The Letters-patent, extended for seven years, were as follows:-For Eng |