Title. Act A. D. 1776. the inventor and advantage to the public. LIARDET'S PATENT. Letters patent, 3 April, 13 G. 3, A. D. 1773, to John Liardet, for "a certain composition or cement." 16 G. 3, c. 29. An Act for vesting in John Liardet, his, &c., the sole use and property of a certain composition or cement of his invention throughout his Majesty's kingdom of Great Britain for a limited time. After reciting the grant of the letters patent, and further reciting, "unless the term granted by the said letters patent be prolonged, and the property of the said John Liardet in the said invention better secured, not only within that part of Great Britain called England, the dominion of Wales, the town of Berwick upon Tweed, and in his Majesty's colonies and plantations abroad, but also within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, it will neither be possible for the said John Liardet Recompense to to receive an adequate recompense for his labour, expense and time, nor for the public at large to reap the various advantages in point of utility and economy, as well as ornament in building, which would arise from this invention were its use universally diffused, and its price lowered, upon which the demand, and consequently the profits of the proprietor, must depend: And whereas the cement from its nature grows too hard for use if not used soon after it is made, and therefore must be made where used, or near it, from which circumstance the use thereof has hitherto been confined to the metropolis and a few miles about it, as training workmen and erecting works is difficult and expensive: And whereas, if the term is not enlarged, the same narrow plan must be continued, a general plan of erecting works and training men all over the kingdom, which is necessary if the use of the cement is to be universal, cannot upon so short a prospect be undertaken, the circle cannot be enlarged, and the price must continue such as may indemnify the proprietor for his expense, out of the profits arising from a very small consumption only during his present term; to the end therefore that the said John Liardet may be enabled and encouraged to prosecute and complete his said invention, so that the public may reap all the advantages to be derived therefrom in their fullest extent," it is enacted, that the said letters patent should be vested in the said Liardet, his, &c., for 18 years from the passing of the act. That price shall not exceed a certain amount. S. 2. And whereas the said John Liardet has hitherto furnished the said cement at the rate of sixpence per foot square on the surfaces of all plain buildings, and twopence per foot running measure for arrises; to the end therefore that the public may be assured of the advantage of this invention at the same price, be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall not be lawful for the said John Liardet, his, &c., during the continuance of this act, to ask, demand, or take any greater price than sixpence by the foot square, and twopence per foot as aforesaid for arrises, so covering any plain work with the aforesaid cement or composition. to be hindered. 3. Proviso, that the act shall not hinder the making any com- The use of the position or cement not the invention or application of the said composition not Liardet, or which has been publicly used or exercised before the date of the letters patent; but that all such not the invention of the said Liardet, or not particularly ascertained and described in the specification thereinafter mentioned, should remain to the public or inventor as if the said act had not been made. 4. That every objection which might have been made to the Objections to said cement, not being a new invention within the true intent patent saved. and meaning of an act of the 21st of James the First, may be made in bar to any action brought by virtue or in consequence of this act. 5. Proviso against transfer to more than five persons. 6. Proviso that Liardet shall enrol a specification within four months after the passing of the act. LIARDET V. JOHNSON. Hil. V. 1778, Cor. Lord Mansfield. [Bull N. P. 76.] The questions are of knowledge and user, The general questions on patents are, 1st. Whether the invention were known and in use before the patent (a): 2d. Whether the specification is sufficient to enable others to make it up; and sufficiency of the specificathe meaning of the specification is, that others may be taught to tion to teach do the thing for which the patent is granted, and if the specifi- the public. cation is false the patent is void, for the meaning of the specification is, that after the term the public shall have the benefit of the discovery (b). Omission of any material In a patent for trusses for ruptures, the patentee omitted what was very material for tempering steel, which was rubbing part of the it with tallow, and for want of that Lord Mansfield held it void (c). defect. (a) Here, as in Dollond's case, ante 43, the user of the invention before the date of the patent is recognised as a necessary part of the ground for avoiding a patent for want of novelty. There are two distinct questions to be considered in most cases of this kind, the one whether the grantee is process a fatal the true and first inventor, the other, whether the invention is new. See post, Jones v. Pearce, and notes. (b) See further as to this on next page, note e. (c) See this case cited and much relied on, post, by Alderson, B., in Morgan v. Seaward. Invention may be the result of sign. Inventions are of various kinds; some depend on the result accident or de- of figuring, others on mechanism, &c.; others depend on no reason, no theory, but a lucky discovery; water tabbies were discovered by a man's spitting on the floor (d). This must, in the nature of the thing, depend on experiments, and those must depend on the proportions of the things used in the composition. (e) (d) See this cited and referred to by Buller, J. in Boulton & Watt v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 487. Also in argument by J. Bell, Q. C. It was not necessary to show that an invention was the result of long application or deep skill. He remembered that, many years ago, ladies wore flowered tabbies. The method of working the flower was discovered by mere accident; a man having spat upon the floor, placed his hot iron on it, and observed that it spread out into a kind of flower. He afterwards tried the experiment upon linen, and found it produced the same effect. He then obtained a patent, and lived to make a considerable fortune. 29 Rep. Arts, 2d Ser. 311. (e) The following account of this case is given by Mr. Bramah in his letter to Chief Justice Eyre (p. 70): Lord Mansfield said, The law relative to patents requires, as a price the individual should pay the people for his monopoly, that he should enrol, to the very best of his knowledge and judgment, the fullest and most sufficient description of all the particulars on which the effect depended, that he was at the time able to do. And it was further remarked by the defendant's advocate, and to which his lordship assented, that even more was required in some instances; for as the patent was secured to the patentee four months before he was obliged to enrol his specification, this allowance was purely for the purpose of giving the inventor the full opportunity of making experiments for his information; and also, that he might have an opportunity of calling in to his assistance the knowledge of others, on points where either his learning or his practice fell short, in enabling him to complete his specification in a style and manner the most explanatory and comprehensive possible. And he further agreed, as near as I can recollect, that no omission or defect in this instrument could admit of an apology, while it was in the power of the patentee to have avoided it by the means above mentioned, no more than it would be sufficient for the author of an ungrammatical publication to attribute it to a want of scholarship, while surrounded with scholastic abilities in want of such a job. My Lord Mansfield agreed that this was what he understood to be the doctrine of patents, and cited an instance where there was in the specification such an omission as must have been fatal to the patent had it ever been contended in a court of law. "This instance was the patent granted to Dr. James for fever powders, in the specification of which he has mentioned the articles only of which these powders are composed, and omitted the proportion or quantity. This being the case, continued his lordship, Dr. James never durst bring any action for infringement, and it was certainly wise in him not to do so, as no patent could stand on such a specification. For, said his lordship, I think more depends in the composition of a medicine on the proportion of the drugs than on their quality; as we find it a fact too notorious, that what even preserves life, taken in too great quantity will in some cases instantly destroy it. Mercury, for instance, though used with a more general good effect, perhaps, than any other article in the materia medica, would produce the most baleful consequences, applied without regard to proportion." Ibid. 72. Title. Specification. HARTLEY'S PATENT. Letters patent to David Hartley, 1 April, 13 G. 3, a.d. 1773, for a 66 particular method of securing buildings and ships against the calamities of fire." My invention of a particular method of securing buildings and ships against the calamities of fire, is described in the manner following: that is to say, By the application of plates of metal and wire, varnished and unvarnished, to the several parts of buildings and ships, so as to prevent the access of fire and the current of air, securing the several joints by doubling in, overlapping, soldering, rivetting, or in any other manner closing them up, nailing, screwing, sewing, or in any other manner fastening, the said plates of metal, into and about the several parts of buildings and ships, as the case may require. 17 G. 3, c. 6. A.D. 1777. An Act for vesting in David Hartley, his, &c. the sole use and Act property of a certain method by him invented of securing buildings against the calamities of fire, throughout his Majesty's dominions, for a limited time. After reciting the grant of the letters patent, and the enrolment of and setting forth the specification, it further recited, And whereas the said David Hartley hath, with great attention and labour, prosecuted, and is still prosecuting, a variety of experiments in order to perfect the said invention: And whereas The great exthe said David Hartley hath employed great sums of money out penses in perfecting the inof his own private fortune, and must necessarily advance still vention. larger sums before the said invention can be completed, and rendered of general public utility, as well by sea as land: And whereas it will not be in the power of the said David Hartley to carry his invention into complete execution, so as to render the same of the highest utility to the public of which it is capable, nor will there be any reasonable prospect to the said David Hartley of being reimbursed the sums of money already by him expended and advanced, and the further sums necessarily to be by him expended and advanced, or of obtaining a proper return and recompense for so important an invention, unless the term granted by the said letters patent be prolonged, and his property in the said invention secured, not only within that part of Great Britain called England, the dominion of Wales, the town of Berwick upon Tweed, and his Majesty's colonies and plantations abroad, but also within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, for such time as may enable him to obtain an adequate recompense for his labour, time, and expense. To the end That the pubthereof that the said David Hartley may be enabled and encou- the full benefit. lic may reap raged to prosecute and complete his said invention, so that the public may reap all the advantages to be derived therefrom in their fullest extent, it is enacted that the sole privilege of making and vending the said invention be vested in David Hartley, &c. for thirty-one years from the passing of the act, prohibiting all persons imitating the same without license in the usual terms of the letters patent. tion, saved. S. 4. That any objection which might have been made to the Objection to nosaid invention not being a new invention, within the true intent velty of invenand meaning of an act of the twenty-first of James the First, sufficient to invalidate letters patent, may be made in bar to any action brought by virtue or in consequence of this act. The other sections of the act were to the following effect:-S. 2. That the invention might be used in the royal dock-yards without license; S. 3. privileges not to be transferred to more than five; S. 6. that the price of the fire plates of iron should not exceed sixpence per square foot. The subject-matter of this invention was the application of plates of metal for the prevention of fire, and the 4th section saves any objection which may be made to this patent in respect of its not being a new invention within the statute of James. Doubts have been entertained as to the validity of this patent, in respect of the subject-matter; whether the invention can be considered any manner of manufacture; whether it is not a mere abstract principle, an unembodied method, or something which does not satisfy the words or spirit of the statute. But the words of the statute," any manner of manufacture," are to be taken in connexion with the preceding words "working or making," and mean either the result attained, or the method of obtaining the result. See ante 43, n. The subject-matter of this patent was maturely considered by Eyre, C. J., in his judgment in Boulton & Watt v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 493, and placed in the general class of patents for methods of operating and manufacturing, producing no new substances, and employing no new machinery. That this patent was valid in respect of its subject-matter may perhaps be rendered clear by the consideration that houses or ships, or parts of houses and ships, were never constructed in this way before; the method published to the world by this patent was, therefore, in the strictest sense, a new manufacture, since it was a new method of arranging matter for that particular purpose of constructing houses and ships. See Forsyth's patent, post 97, n. Hartley had a grant of £2500 from parliament to enable him to ascertain the practicability and utility of his invention. Title. Specification. ARKWRIGHT'S PATENT (a). Letters patent to Richard Arkwright, 16 December, A. D. 1775, "for certain machines for preparing silk, cotton, flax, and wool, for spinning." I, the said Richard Arkwright, do hereby describe and ascertain the nature of my said invention, and declare that the plan thereof, drawn in the margin of these presents, is composed of the following particulars; that is to say : For bruising the No. 1, a beater or breaker of seeds, husks, &c., and a finer flax to render the of the flax, hemp, and other articles which are to be prefibres susceptible of division. pared for dressing, in which (a) is a wheel with teeth, which, by acting upon a lever, raises the hammer (c), the lever being moveable upon the centre (d). For heckling the bruised hemp. The present feed ing apparatus. The crank for No. 2, an iron frame with teeth at (a), working against a lower frame with like teeth at (b); this lower frame is firmly connected to a wooden frame by means of the screws (c, c); the upper teeth are made to act against the lower by means of the joints (d, d, d, d) (b). No. 3 is a piece of cloth with wool, flax, hemp, or any other such materials spread thereon, as at (a). No. 4 is a crank and a frame of iron with teeth at (a), being stripping off the moveable at the joints (b, b, b, b,) by means of a crank, and by cotton in a sliver. (a) This is Arkwright's second patent; his first patent, July 3, 1769, for the spinning machinery, was comparatively of small service until the subsequent invention of the preparing machinery, the subject of the present patent. See per Mr. Farey, App. to Parl. Rep. on Patents; also, Rees's Cyclopædia, Arts. Cotton and Manufactures; also the works of Dr. Ure and Mr. Baines, on the Cotton Manufacture. For a plate of the drawings referred to in the specification, see the folio report of the trial R. v. Arkwright, and Collier on Patents. (b) No. 1 is for beating and bruising hemp, to split the fibres, and render them susceptible of divisions; No. 2 is for heckling the bruised hemp; they relate only to the preparation of hemp and flax. |