Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

to be capable of producing, and has brought that invention to a great degree of perfection, and within the time allowed by the patent for exhibiting the specification, and before the arrival of that time, he perfects his invention, and renders it more complete by the introduction of a different species of machinery, by the application of that to different mechanical parts of the machine, if so, whether that will make his patent void. No case has ever decided that, and I think it would be extremely dangerous to lay down any such doctrine. I do not see myself why time is allowed to prepare the specification, except upon Time is allowed the idea that the person, at the time he took out his patent, for the specifihas not brought his machine, or whatever he has invented, to that the inventhat degree of perfection which it may be supposed he is capable brought to the tion may be of bringing it to, and, therefore, he is allowed further time to do greatest degree it. If in the interval another person should have hit upon that of perfection. which he has hit upon, that patent will not be for what in the mean time has been discovered by another person. He runs all those hazards by the delay, but if during that delay the invention was perfected, and approaches to a perfect accomplishment of the object which he had originally in view, I own I do not see that can be any objection to the patent.

cation, in order

cation are to be

instrument.

BAILEY, J.: I think the specification and the patent are to The letters pabe taken as one muniment in enforcing this claim on the part of tent and specifi the patentee, and they only. The specification, with new im- taken as one provements, would still be the thing for which the patent was obtained, and I think it is most beneficial to the public to say, that it is the duty of the inventor, if between the period of taking out the patent and enrolling the specification he makes discoveries which will enable it better to effectuate the thing for which the patent was obtained, not only that he is at liberty to introduce them into his patent, but that it is his bounden duty so to do, and that it is not sufficient for him to communicate to the public the knowledge which he had at the time he obtained the patent, but he ought to communicate to the public the knowledge he Improvements has obtained before the specification; and, therefore, I am of made during the interval for speopinion, in this case, the objection which has been taken to this cifying should patent is not to be supported.

LITTLEDALE, J.: I am also of the same opinion. This patent was taken out for an improved gas apparatus, and at that time the inventor has something in his mind which he considers will be a benefit to the public, and he applies to the crown upon that prospect which he has of doing something from which the public are to derive a benefit. He is allowed a certain time to make out his specification. He may be called upon by the crown to do it immediately, but, however, time is given. In the mean time, something contributing very materially to the improvement of that comes into his mind, and before his specification is made out, he finds that will answer, and he introduces it into

be described.

his specification. Now, it can only be upon a very strict technical rule, that the addition in the specification to what was passing in his own mind when he applied for the patent, would render that specification, and the patent which was obtained upon that, entirely void. It has been held, that if a man applies for a patent for two things, and he is not the inventor of one, or there is some objection to one of them, the whole is void, because it is considered he is making an unfair representation to the crown, and the crown grants him that patent upon that representation; that is unfair, and if any one part fails, the whole is to fail also. That, however, appears to me to be only a technical rule, which has been intended to prevent frauds in obtaining patents, or for some other reason, but it is merely a technical rule, and there is no reason why it should be carried further than it has been. For the same reason, if he takes out a patent, it may be, if the specification is bad in part, that part of the specification which is bad for any reason, may vitiate the whole, and The insertion of render the whole void. But in this case there is no deception improvement because he intended really and bona fide There is no deception practised upon the public, for the public, until the specification was enrolled, are unacquainted with the mode in which that is to be carried into effect. It is merely floating in his own mind; his mind has got into an improving state, and his mind is able to give an improvement that I will call five, and from day to day, as he puts this machine up to see if it will answer, and see that the specification is right, he finds from day to day that five will increase to seven, or eight, or ten. Surely it would be a hard thing upon him, if when he has made this improvement of double value, or if having given a double mode to the public, that the whole should be rendered void, and he should be deprived of the benefit, because he had not communicated the whole of what was passing in his mind at the time the patent was taken out. I must own I think it would be an extremely unjust thing if it were so, and I know of no principle of law upon which it should be so decided.

made during the practised on the crown,
interval for spe- to give a gas apparatus.
cifying, no fraud
either on the
crown or the
public.

PARKE, J.: I was concerned in this cause when at the bar, and therefore I will give no opinion upon it.

Rule refused.

The principle of the above decision is, that there was no false suggestion; but the form of the proviso, and the necessity under which the patentee is placed to forego experiments requiring the assistance of others until the patent is sealed, may be referred to. The proviso requires that the party should describe and ascertain the nature of the said invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed. In a large class of cases, of which

the above is one, the nature of the invention may be the application of some general principle admitting of an infinite variety of mechanical or other means in the carrying it out into practice.

It should also be remembered that the proviso is of recent introduction (Law & Practice, Pr. F. XIII. n. q.), the common law only requiring that the party should be able to practise his invention beneficially for the public. Ante 8.

CROSSLEY . BEVERLEY.

Cor. Lord Lyndhurst, L. C.

The bill having stated the plaintiff's title, and the result of In Chancery, the proceedings at law in the preceding action, alleged, that 4th Dec. 1829. communications had taken place between the parties respecting granted to reInjunction coming to an account as to the gas meters made and sold, and strain the sale of machines piratinow on hand in a finished or unfinished state, but that no satis- cally made durfactory account had been received, and that defendant still had ing the patent. in his possession or power a large quantity of gas meters finished or unfinished, and which he intended to sell for his own profit, and prayed an injunction.

It was suggested that the defendant had a large stock of gas meters, which, on the expiration of the patent in a few days, would be thrown on the market.

Injunction granted.

CROSSLEY V. DERBY GAS LIGHT COMPANY.

Cor. Lord Lyndhurst, L. C.

This was an application for an injunction to restrain the In Chancery, Company and another defendant from infringing the plaintiff's 4th Dec. 1829. Injunction granted.

patent.

Cor. Sir L. Shadwell, V. C.

1834. Account order

of meters made

Ordered, that the injunction granted in this cause be conti- 10th March, nued, and that the same do extend to restrain the defendants, the Company, from using the gas meters made during the term ed of profits of the letters patent, which expired on the 9th day of December, made from use 1829; and that it be referred to the Master to take an account during the paof what profits have been received, and what benefit derived, tent. from the use of such gas meters as were made or manufactured during the existence of such letters patent, for six years previous to the filing the plaintiff's bill down to this time; and that the defendants, the Company, pay to the plaintiff what the said Master shall certify to be due on taking such account, together with costs, &c.

Cor. Lord Brougham, L. C.

The defendants appealed against so much of the decree of the 14th Nov. 1834. Vice Chancellor as required an account and payment, without

A party having a right must

not lie by, and

afterwards claim a share

in the profit.

first requiring the plaintiff to establish his title at law against the petitioners, and also against the nature and extent of the account thereby directed.

Lord BROUGHAM, L. C.: The validity of the patent must be taken as fully established; but whether the account should be had as directed, was another question.

It was a principle of equity, that a party who claimed a right should not lie by, and, by his silence or acquiescence, induce another to go on expending his money and incurring risk, and afterwards, if profit has been made, come and claim a share in that profit, without ever having been exposed to share in the losses which might have been sustained. Upon this the defendants rely: but it was to be considered, on the other hand, Delay may be whether the plaintiff did not explain the delay which has taken explained. place, and whether the conduct of the defendants has not been such as to lull the plaintiff's suspicions to sleep. It appears that in 1821 the defendants bought two gas meters, and afterwards paid for a license to use another gas meter, and applied for a badge to put on the meter. They had prevented any person from having access to their manufactory, and all along denied that they were guilty of any infringement on the plaintiff's patent. The invention was not profitable till 1824, and from that period till the filing of the bill, the plaintiff had frequently conferred with his solicitor; but it was not till 1829 that he had been able to obtain sufficient evidence of infringement of his patent by the defendants. Under these circumstances the delay is explained, and the decree of the Vice Chancellor must be Affirmed, with costs.

The Master having, by his report, proved and certified certain facts, and that the benefit, including profit received, derived by the defendants from the use of such gas meters as were made and manufactured during the existence of the letters patent, from six years previous to filing the plaintiff's bill down to the date of the decree, amounted to the sum of 60004.; several exceptions were taken to it, and being heard before the Master of the Rolls (6th May, 1837), his lordship made an order referring it back to the Master to review his report, with a direction that he should state the grounds

upon which he came to the conclusion which he might arrive at.

The plaintiff having appealed against that order, Lord Cottenham, L. C. dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment on the appeal is fully reported in 3 Myl. & C. 428; it relates entirely to the method of taking an account of profits under circumstances of the peculiar nature of the present case, the question being simply, whether the Master had properly taken the account referred to him by the decree.

Title.

Specification.

JONES'S PATENT.

Letters patent, 10th Oct. A.D. 1826, to Theodore Jones, for a certain improvement or improvements on wheels for carriages."

I do hereby declare the nature of my said invention to consist in an improved construction of carriage wheels, of such nature, that the weight which they have to carry is suspended

from that part of the wheel which happens to be uppermost,
instead of being supported as is usual by the spokes which
happen to be under the axletree; and I do hereby describe the
manner in which my said invention is to be performed by the
following description thereof, reference being had to the drawing
annexed, and to the figures and letters marked thereon.
* (a)

*

*

*

Now, whereas the wheels in general use for carriages are made or constructed with spokes, in such manner that the spoke or spokes that happen to be under the axletree contribute to the support of the weight or load.

But whereas I hereby claim as my invention, and declare that my improvement or improvements on wheels for carriages consist in substituting suspending rods made of iron or other suitable metal in lieu of spokes, by which suspending rods I hang or suspend the weight or load from that part of the wheel which happens to be uppermost, and prevent any support being given to the said weight or load by the rods which happen to be immediately under the axletree. In witness, &c.

JONES V. PEARCE.

Cor. Sir L. Shadwell, V. C. 10th Aug. A.D. 1831.

On motion for injunction, and after hearing counsel on both In Chancery. sides, and the defendant undertaking to accept a declaration, and plead as of the last Trinity Term, and to keep an account of all moneys received by him in respect of his having made or used the plaintiff's improvements, it was ordered, “that the plaintiff be at liberty to bring such action as he shall be advised, and the said defendant is according to his undertaking to accept a declaration and to plead as of last Term, and keep such account as aforesaid; and that this motion stand over until after the trial of such action, and either of the said parties to be at liberty to apply to this court as there shall be occasion."

(a) The specification proceeds to describe the details of the construction of wheels with one and two sets of spokes or suspending rods; and the particular mode of arranging the suspending rods. The rim of the wheel was pierced by conical holes, into which one end of the suspending rod fitted accurately; the other end of the suspending rod passed through a cylindrical hole in the nave (which was divided into as many separate com

partments as rods), and a nut being screwed on the end of the rod in each compartment, the rod was fixed in its place. These nuts were prevented from unscrewing by a plate called the shield, which was placed in front of the nave, in contact with their edges. These suspending rods could recede slightly in the nave on a pressure being applied at the end in the rim.

R

« ZurückWeiter »