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.

By Statute.

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.

APPLICATION.

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.

per,

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.

See SUBJECT-MATTER.

APPRENTICES.

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.

ASSIGNEE.

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.

See ESTOPPEL.

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.

BILL.

Amendment of without prejudice to
an injunction. Russell v. Cowley, 471,

n. c.

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.

CERTIFICATE.

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.

See COSTS.

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.

COLONIES.

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.

See SUBJECT-MATTER.

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

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.

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.

CROWN.

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.

DAMAGES.

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.

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,

DATE.

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.

DISCLAIMER.

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.