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. 661.
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. Ibid. 663.
Letters patent amended, and then re- sealed. Ibid. 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.
AMENDMENT.
At Common Law.
The authority of the Master of the Rolls is limited to correcting errors of mistake. In re Sharp's patent, 646.
Instances of amendment and records amended, 647, n. l.
A clerical error having been committed, in the queen's warrant for granting let- ters patent, by a clerk in the Secretary of State's office, and having been copied into the queen's bill, the queen's signet bill, the privy seal bill, and the letters patent and enrolment, and having been corrected by her Majesty's command in the queen's warrant and the queen's bill, the Master of the Rolls, on the petition of the pa- tentee, to which the Solititor General had given his consent, ordered the proper officer from the privy seal office to be at liberty to amend the privy seal bill, which was in his lordship's custody, and upon that being done, he ordered the enrolment to be amended. Re Nickels' patent, cor. M. R., 650.
The application of plates of metal to secure buildings, &c., from fire, the sub- ject of letters patent. Hartley's pa- tent, 54.
Also the application of detonating powder for giving fire to artillery. For syth's patent, 95.
Also the application of gas to singeing the superfluous fibres of lace and similar fabrics. Hall's patent, 97.
Also the application of hot water or steam, of a hot cylinder, of bituminous schistus, for effecting improvements in the respective manufactures of cloth, pa- and sugar, 97, n.; Crompton v. Ibbotson, 83; Derosne's patent, 152.
The use of known things, and acting with them in a known manner, produc- ing results or effects already known in a more economical or beneficial manner, the subject of letters patent. Crane v. Price, 409.
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.
Grantee of exclusive privileges re- quired to take and teach apprentices during the last seven years of his term. Buck's invention, 35.
ARRANGEMENT.
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.
An arrangement of float-boards ac- cording to a certain rule or law in the construction of paddle-wheels. Gallo- way's patent, 521.
In an action by an assignee for an in- fringement, an allegation that the pa- tentee duly assigned his interest to the plaintiff, sufficient after verdict. Cornish v. Keene, 501, n. a.
In an action by the assignee of letters patent against the grantee for an in- fringement, the latter is estopped from denying that he had any title to convey. Oldham v. Langmead, 291.
In an action by the assignees of letters patent, on a covenant in articles of agreement, the defendant is not pre- cluded from denying the novelty of the invention, there being no recital in the deed to that effect by which he may be estopped. Hayne v. Maltby, 291.
The legal interests of an assignee and Protheroe v. licensee very different. May, 417.
Assignment of a share in letters pa- tent, may constitute a partnership. Ibid. 417, n.
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 whom 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.
Amendment of without prejudice to an injunction. Russell v. Cowley, 471,
CAVEAT AT THE GREAT SEAL.
Caveat may be entered with the Lord Chancellor to withhold the great seal from letters patent; 430, n. c.; ex parte Henson, 432.
The Chancellor refused to withhold the great seal from a patent, on the pre- sumption that the subject of it was bor- rowed from an existing patent. Ex parte Fox, 431.
The Chancellor refused to seal letters patent which allowed fifteen months for enrolling the specification. Re Lacy's patent, 431.
A party alleging the invention, for which a patent arrived at the great seal, to have been obtained from himself by a breach of confidence, has a right to be heard on a caveat. Ex parte Henson, 432.
Matter of petition referred to the At- torney General in aid of the Chancellor. Ibid. 432.
On petition to the Lord Chancellor to seal letters 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. 424.
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. Wilby, 270.
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, 271.
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.
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, 142.
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- castle, 76.
Semble, A claim to carrying out a principle in any way is a claim to the principle itself. Neilson v. Harford, 355. See SPECIFICATION.
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. Brown v. Annan- dale, 448-9.
Any combination leading to a new and a cheaper, or a better article, is the subject 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.
CONFIRMATION.
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 patent, 553.
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, 554.
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 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. Conley, 470.
The description of the invention is to be taken from the specification, and not from the patent. Arkwright v. Night- ingale, 60.
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 Ibid. 351. informed of the facts.
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.
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. Beverley, 107.
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
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.
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.
In action for infringement damages generally only nominal. Lewis v. Mar- ling, 493, n. z.
Acts done in reliance on former ver- dict against a patent, evidence in reduc- tion of damages. Arkwright v. Night- ingale, 61.
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.
Costs on a caveat with the Chancellor to withhold the great seal from a patent, refused. Ex parte Fox, 431.
Costs on a caveat against sealing a patent, given. Re Cutler's patent, 430.
The costs of an action permitted by the Court of Chancery must follow the usual rule as to costs of an action at law; though in the case of an action or issue directed the case may be different. Russell v. Cowley, 471, n. b.
The defendant, if entitled to a non- 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 taxation of costs on the issues. Losh v. Hague, 209.
The Privy Council will give costs in some cases. Westrup & Gibbins' patent,
Letters patent bear date the day of sealing, but may be sealed as of the day of the delivery of the warrant into Chancery (16 H. 6, c. 1); 430, n. c.
The date of letters patent cannot be altered. Ex parte Beck, 430.
A caveat having been disposed of, the letters patent were sealed as of the date of the delivery of the privy seal bill into Chancery. Re Cutler's patent, 430.
The date not altered on letters patent being resealed after an amendment. Re Nickels' patent, 663.
A disclaimer or memorandum of alte- ration of part of the title or specification may be enrolled, with leave of the law officers of the crown (stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, s. 1); 250, n. a.
« ZurückWeiter » |