« ZurückWeiter »
It is not a matter of right that a party
should have an action tried in a court
of law, but of convenience. Wilson v.
Tindal, 730, n.
The court refused to enlarge a rule
calling on a plaintiff to show cause why
a nonsuit should not be entered so as to
allow the trial of a sci. fa. to take prece-
dence. Haworth v. Hardcastle, 486,n.n.
A plaintiff has a strict right to go on
in his action to judgment; the repeal of
the letters patent by sci. fa. will not of
necessity preclude the plaintiff from
judgment in the action. Ibid.
The letters patent must be altered
first, and then there must be authority to
alter the enrolment. Re Nickels' patent,
cor. L.C., 658.
An enrolment cannot be permitted to
differ from the letters patent. Ibid.661.
An amended privy seal bill is no au-
thority to the M.R. Ibid. 659.
The statute permitting the enrolment
to be given in evidence instead of the
patent, an amendment causing the former
to differ from the latter is irregular. Ibid.
An order to that effect discharged, and
the enrolment restored. Ibid. 664.
The letters patent will only be amend-
ed and resealed on a proper privy seal
bill being brought to the Chancellor.
Letters patent amended, and then re-
sealed. Toid. 664, & 664, n. l.
Where a patent is originally voidable,
but amended under 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, by
filing a disclaimer of part of the inven-
tion, that act has not a retrospective
operation so as to make a party liable for
the infringement of the patent prior to
the time of entering such disclaimer.
Perry v. Skinner, 250.
An addition to an existing machine is
the subject of a patent. Morris v. Bran-
som, 51, & 51 n.
But the specification must distinctly
confine the invention to such addition.
Ibid, 51, n.
And such addition may be on the sub-
ject of a subsisting patent. Fox, ex
parte, 431,51, n.; Crane v. Price, 412.
At Common Law.
The authority of the Master of the The application of plates of metal to
Rolls is limited to correcting errors of
secure buildings, &c., from fire, the sub-
mistake. In re Sharp's patent, 646. ject of letters patent. Hartley's pa-
Instances of amendment and records tent, 54.
amended, 617, n. l.
Also the application of detonating
A clerical error having been committed, powder for giving fire to artillery. For
in the queen's warrant for granting let- syth's patent, 95.
ters patent, by a clerk in the Secretary of
Also the application of gas to singeing
State's office, and having been copied into the superfluous fibres of lace and similar
the queen's bill, the queen's signet bill,
fabrics. Hall's patent, 97. .
the privy seal bill, and the letters patent
and enrolment, and having been corrected
Also the application of hot water or
by her Majesty's command in the queen's
steam, of a hot cylinder, of bituminous
warrant and the queen's bill, the Master
schistus, for effecting improvements in
of the Rolls, on the petition of the pa-
the respective manufactures of cloth, pa-
tentee, to wbich the Solititor General had per, and sugar, 97, n.; Crompton 5.
given his consent, ordered the proper
Ibbotson, 83; Derosne's patent, 152.
officer from the privy seal office to be at The use of known things, and acting
liberty to amend the privy seal bill, with them in a known manner, produc-
which was in his lordship's custody, ing results or effects already known in s
and upon that being done, he ordered the more economical or beneficial manner,
enrolment to be amended. Re Nickels' the subject of letters patent. Crane F.
patent, cor. M. R., 650.
As, the substitution of a tube for a
ring. Huddart v. Grimshaw, 95.
The application or use of an old arti-
cle, as a wheel, for a new object, as to
run on a railway, is not the subject of
letters patent. Losh v. Hague, 208.
Semble, the application of any article
or substance to a new purpose, so as to
result in a new manufacture, is the sub-
ject of letters patent. Ibid. 208, n. f.
The legal interests of an assignee and
licensee very different. Protheroe v.
Assignment of a share in letters pa-
tent, may constitute a partnership. Ibid.
An assignee of letters patent, in which
there had been a disclaimer by a party
not possessing the entire interest, may
maintain an action for infringement.
Spilsbury v. Clough, 255.
Semble, That the grantee, though hav-
ing parted with his whole interest, and
not the assignee, is the proper party to
make the disclaimer. Ibid. 258.
The assignee is the party to whoin the
new letters patent, in case of an exten-
sion under the statute, should be granted.
Re Southworth's patent, 487.
The assignee is taken to represent the
whole merit of the patentee on applica-
tion for an extension. Re Galloway's
patent, 726, and Morgan's patent, 738.
Grantee of exclusive privileges re-
quired to take and teach apprentices
uring the last seven years of his term.
Buck's invention, 35.
A particular arrangement or combina-
tion of known things, the subject of let-
ters patent., Cornish v. Keene, 517;
Carpenter v. Smith, 532-3.
See COMBINATION & SUBJECT-MATTER.
Amendment of without prejudice to
an injunction. Russell v. Cowley, 471,
An arrangement of float-boards ac-
cording to a certain rule or law in the CAVEAT AT THE GREAT SEAL.
construction of paddle-wheels. Gallo-
Caveat may be entered with the Lord
noay's patent, 521.
Chancellor to withhold the great seal
from letters patent; 430, n. C.; ex parte
The Chancellor refused to withhold
the great seal from a patent, on the pre-
In an action by an assignee for an in- sumption that the subject of it was bor-
fringement, an allegation that the pa- rowed from an existing patent. Ex
tentee duly assigned his interest to the
parte Fox, 431.
plaintiff, sufficient after verdict. Cornish
The Chancellor refused to seal letters
v. Keene, 501, n. a.
patent which allowed fifteen months for
action by the assignee of letters enrolling the specification. Re Lacy's
patent against the grantee for an in-
fringement, the latter is estopped from
denying that he had any title to convey.
A party alleging the invention, for
Oldham v. Langmead, 291.
which a patent arrived at the great
seal, to have been obtained from himself
In an action by the assignees of letters by a breach of confidence, has a right to
patent, on a covenant in articles of be heard on a caveat. Ex parte Henson,
agreement, the defendant is not pre-
cluded from denying the novelty of the
invention, there being no recital in the
Matter of petition referred to the At-
deed to that effect by which he may be
torney General in aid of the Chancellor.
estopped. Hayne v. Maltby, 291.
On petition to the Lord Chancellor to
seal leiters patent against which a caveat
had been entered at the great seal, it
was referred to the Attorney General to
report whether the letters patent should
issue. Cutler's patent, 418.
The Lord Chancellor has authority to
withhold the great seal if he sees fit;
the reference to the Attorney General
under the circumstances of the case is for
the information of the Chancellor. Ibid.
Or, where the patent claims a general
principle or mode which is old, not the
particular means for carrying out such
principle or mode. R. v. Cutler, 71.
As where the specification claims the
application of a self-adjusting leverage to
the back and seat of a chair, it appearing
that had been so applied before, though
in such a manner as to be incapable of
acting by reason of its being encumbered
with other machinery. Minter v. Morer,
The defendant having pleaded, deny.
ing the novelty of the invention, the
validity of the patent may be consi.
dered as having come in question so as
to entitle the plaintiff to a certificate to
that effect under the 3d section of the
statute 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83. Gillett v.
An action on the case for the infringe-
ment of a patent is within the operation
of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2; and notwith-
standing the provisions of the statute
5 & 6 W.4, c. 83, s. 3, the plaintiff re-
covering only nominal damages, cannot
have his full costs or treble costs without
a certificate under the former act. After
taxation the judge has no power to
grant such certificate. Gillett v. Green,
The certificate under 5 & 6 W.4, c. 83,
s. 6, should have reference to the notice
of objections, and not to the issues. Losh
v. Hague, 209.
Semble, That a claim for an improve-
ment on such application would have
been good. Ibid.
It is not sufficient that there be de-
scribed in the specification an invention
which is new, or might support a patent,
if that be not distinctly claimed as the
invention. Sanders v. Aston, 75.
It is not sufficient that a part of the
invention be very ingenious and new, if
that be not claimed. Bramah v. Hard-
Semble, A claim to carrying out a
principle in any way is a claim to the
principle itself. Neilson v. Harford, 355.
The colonies are part of the realm,
and semble, that the prior public user of
an invention therein would vitiate sub-
sequent letters patent granted for any
part of the realm Broron v. Annar.
If the specification seek to cover more
than the patentee is strictly entitled to,
the patent is rendered ineffectual even to The combination of a concave and
the extent to which he would otherwise convex lens to make an object-glass, the
be fairly entitled. Hill v. Thompson, subject of letters patent. Dollond's pa-
tent, 43, n.
As where the patent claims generally The particular combination of old
the mixing of cotton and silk thread, and materials, elastic and non-elastic thread,
not any particular mode of mixing it. the subject of letters patent. Cornish
R. v. Else, 76.
v. Keene, 517.
As where the invention consists in the The combined use of anthracite coal
application or addition of a pipe to an and hot blast in the manufacture of iron,
old stove, but the specification extends the subject of letters patent. Crane V.
to the stove also. Williams v. Brodie, 75. Price, 408.
Any combination leading to a new
· and a cheaper, or a better article, is the
şubject of letters patent. Ibid. 409.
An improved, or the particular, com-
bination, the subject of letters patent.
Carpenter v. Smith, 538.
rived from the specification. The House-
hill Company v. Neilson, 719.
The consideration for the patent is
the specification ; if the invention be old,
that fails. Ibid.
See FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.
See False SUGGESTION,
The crown on the recommendation of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council may grant new letters patent
for an invention which has been par-
tially used or known. (Stat. 5 & 6 W. 4,
c. 83, s. 2.
There being no evidence of user of
part of an invention contained in a pub-
lished book, letters patent for such in.
vention will be confirmed. Heurteloup's
Letters patent will not be confirmed
adversely to a prior right. The exercise
of the jurisdiction is purely discretion-
ary. Costs of opposition will be given in
some cases. Westrup & Gibbins' patent,
CONSIDERATION OF GRANT.
The restraining people in one trade
that they might employ themselves in
another, not a valid consideration. Case
of Monopolies, 5.
That grantee had undertaken to make
smalt, which was never before made in
England, as good as that imported, and
to sell the same at such reasonable rates
as it was sold at before. Baker's pa-
tents, 9, 11, 13.
To supply the kingdom as well as be-
fore, and at reasonable rates. Ibid.
The expense of establishing a new
trade a ground for an extension by the
legislature. Lombe's patent, 38.
The difficulty of establishing a ma-
nufacture upon a new principle, a ground
of extension by the legislature. Cook,
worthy's patent, 39.
Failure of consideration a ground for
avoiding the grant. R. v. Mussary, 41.
If the invention be not new, the pub-
lic have not any consideration for the
patent, namely, the knowledge to be de.
The patent a bargain between the pa-
tentee and the public, to be construed
on the principles of good faith. Neilson
v. Harford, 341.
The letters patent and specification
are to be taken as one instrument in en-
forcing a claim. Crossley v. Beverley,
The letters patent and specification
constitute one instrument, and are to be
interpreted according to the ordinary
sense of the terms. The Househill Com-
pany v. Neilson, 679.
The specification is to be taken in con-
nexion with the letters patent in de-
termining the validity of the title.
Neilson v. Harford, 312.
The patent is to be read in connexion
with the specification, and with a view
to support it. Russell v. Cowley, 470.
The description of the invention is to
be taken from the specification, and not
from the patent. Arkwright v. Night-
The construction of the patent and
the extent of the claim is for the court.
Hill v. Thompson, 237.
The utility of the invention and the
intelligibility of the specification are for
the jury; but the nature and extent of
the claim for the court. Ibid.
The meaning of the specification is
for the court, the words of art having
been interpreted by the jury. Neilson
v. Harford, 350.
The meaning of the specification is
matter of law, the judge having been
informed of the facts. Ibid. 351.
The construction of letters patent and
specification, except as to terms of art, is
for the court. Derosne v. Fairie, 156.
Some questions on the specification
are for the jury, and others for the court.
Neilson v. Harford, 367.
556 ; Downton's patent, 567; Macin-
tosh's patent, 739.
If the damage be under 40s. a certi-
ficate under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2, ne-
cessary to give the plaintiff his costs.
Gillett v. Green, 271.
The prerogative of the crown as to
grants of letters patent absolutely re-
strained without reference to the place
in respect of which the grant is made.
Per Lord Lyndhurst, L. C., 454, n.
The construction of all written in-
struments is for the court, the meaning
of the words and surrounding circum-
stances having been ascertained by the
jury. Ibid. 370.
The terms of the specification must
be interpreted according to the state of
knowledge at the time. Crossley v.
The terms “other substances” must
be understood with reference to sub-
stance, ejusdem generis, and in use at
the time, and which practical men would
employ. Ibid. 108.
The specification, on its fair construc-
tion, excluding the use of a maundril, it
will be presumed that the patentee does
not claim the use of that instrument.
Russell v. Cowley, 467.
A patentee to be presumed not to claim
things which he must have known to be
in use. Haworth v. Hardcastle, 484.
The specification should be read so as
consistently with the fair import of lan-
guage to make the claim co-extensive
with the actual discovery. Ibid. 485.
If a specification describe certain ma-
chinery, and omit to claim any particular
part, or the combination of parts, the
patent must be taken to be for the whole.
Carpenter v. Smith, 532.
In action for infringement damages
generally only nominal. Lewis v. Mar-
long, 493, n. 2.
Acts done in reliance on former ver-
dict against a patent, evidence in reduc-
tion of damages. Arkwright v. Night-
To consist of profits and compensation
for the infraction of rights. The House-
hill Company V. Neilson, 697.
The plaintiff not entitled to damages
in a second action as of right. Minter
v. Mower, 138.
Letters patent bear date the day of
Costs on a caveat with the Chancellor sealing, but may be sealed as of the
to withhold the great seal from a patent, day of the delivery of the warrant into
refused. Ex parte Fox, 431.
Chancery (16 H.6, c. 1); 430, n. c.
Costs on a caveat against sealing a The date of letters patent cannot be
patent, given. Re Cutler's patent, 430. altered. Ex parte Beck, 430.
The costs of an action permitted by A caveat having been disposed of, the
the Court of Chancery must follow the letters patent were sealed as of the date
usual rule as to costs of an action at of the delivery of the privy seal bill into
law; though in the case of an action or Chancery. Re Cutler's patent, 430.
issue directed the case may be different. The date not altered on letters patent
Russell v. Cowley, 471, n. 6.
being resealed after an amendment. Re
The defendant, if entitled to a non- Nickels' patent, 663.
suit, ought not to pay the costs of a new
trial. Derosne v. Fairie, 160.
The statute (5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, s. 6)
was not intended to render inoperative
Reg. G. H. T. 2, W. 4, s. 74, as to the
A disclaimer or memorandum of alte-
taxation of costs on the issues. Losh v. ration of part of the title or specification
may be enrolled, with leave of the law
The Privy Council will give costs in officers of the crown (stat. 5 & 6 W. 4,
some cases. Westrup & Gibbins' patent, c. 83, s. 1); 250, n. a.