Since the act of union, England and Scotland must be taken to be one country in support of the validity of letters patent. Roebuck v. Stirling, 45; Brown v. Annandale, 433. Evidence of user in England admissible to invalidate a patent for Scotland. Roebuck v. Stirling, 46. An invention being known and publicly practised in England before the date of letters patent for Scotland, the latter are void. Ibid. 48. Previous public use in England will invalidate a patent for Scotland. Brown v. Annandale, 434. England, Scotland, and the Colonies, became one realm by the act of union. Ibid. 448. ENROLMENT. The enrolment of a disclaimer or memorandum of alteration duly made cannot be expunged from the rolls of the court. Re Sharp's patent, 641. The authority of the Master of the Rolls is limited to correcting clerical errors or errors of mistake. Ibid. 646. An error in the enrolment of the privy seal bill will be amended. Re Nickels' patent, 655. The enrolment is properly of the letters patent, and not of the privy seal bill. Ibid. 661. An enrolment different from the letters patent will not be permitted to continue. Ibid. 661. The letter having been written for f in the engrossment of the specification, and the enrolment made therefrom, the Master of the Rolls ordered the latter to be amended. Re Whitehouse's patent, 649, n. m. The specification having recited the letters to have been granted in "October" instead of " November," the Master of the Rolls ordered the enrolment to be amended. Re Rubery's patent, 649. The copying clerk, in making the enrolment of the specification, transposed certain numbers of reference to the drawings; the Master of the Rolls ordered the enrolment to be amended. Re Redmund's patent, 649. Clerical errors in enrolments, or errors made by inadvertence, always amended, but under various authorities. Re Sharp's patent, 647. Records amended, 647, n. l. ERRORS. Amendable at Common Law. See AMENDMENT AND ENROLMENT. Amendable by Statute. See AMENDMENT AND DISCLAIMER. ESTOPPEL. A patentee who has conveyed away his interest is estopped in an action of infringement by his assignee from denying his title to convey. Oldham v. Langmead, 291. In an action of covenant on articles of agreement, which recited that the plaintiffs were assignees of letters patent, the defendant is not estopped from denying the novelty of the invention. Hayne v. Maltby, 291. In an action of covenant on a license deed, reciting that the plaintiff had invented certain improvements, &c., the Evidence of user in England admissible to show want of novelty in proceedings on Scotch patent. Roebuck & Garbett's case, 46. The only evidence which the plaintiff can give on the issue of novelty is, that of persons who were in the way of hearing of the invention, not having heard of it. Cornish v. Keene, 509. A plaintiff must give some evidence of the sufficiency of the specification if denied. Turner v. Winter, 81. As, the evidence of persons of science and workmen, that they have read the specification and can understand it, and have practised the invention according to it. Cornish v. Keene, 503. And in the absence of contradiction on the part of the defendant, such evidence will be sufficient. Ibid. The defendant must show that persons have been misled by the specification, or incurred expense in attempting to follow it, and were unable to ascertain what was meant. Ibid. The plaintiff can only make a primâ facie case of novelty by calling persons acquainted with the particular trade and manufacture, to prove that they never heard of any invention similar to the plaintiff's. Galloway v. Bleaden, 526. If a whole class of substances be mentioned as suitable, the plaintiff must show that each and every of them will succeed. Bickford v. Skewes, 218. The letters patent are prima facie evidence of the title of the party, and it is for the defendant to impeach their title. Minter v. Wells, 129. In an action for the infringement of a patent, professing to be an improvement EXPERIMENT. An experiment found not to answer, and abandoned as useless, will not vitiate a subsequent patent for an invention in which the previous defects are remedied. Jones v. Pearce, 124. A mere experiment or course of experiments, for the purpose of procuring a result which is not brought to completion, but begins and ends in uncertain experiments, will not prevent another person, who is more successful, from obtaining the benefit of his success. Galloway v. Bleaden, 525 & 529. The question is, whether what was done rested in experiment, and unsucfull result, or whether it was a complete cessful experiment, not conducted to its discovery of that which forms the subject of the patent? Ibid. 526 & 529. An invention abandoned must be presumed not to have been complete, but to have rested in experiment. The Househill Company v. Neilson, 713. That which is merely experiment can never vitiate a patent; the experiments and patent go on together. Ibid. 704, 705. See ABANDONMENT. EXTENSION OF TERM. The benefit conferred on the public by the employment of the poor, consenufacture, a ground for extension of quent on the importation of a new materm by the legislature. The Lustring patent (9 & 10 W. 3, c. 43, P.) 37. Itid. 37, n. The increase of trade and the employ- The difficulties of establishing a new Insufficiency of the original term for cepting as to the former patent, except By Statute 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83. The crown on the recommendation of But application for such prolongation A strong case of hardship, and as to A prima facie case of the sufficiency A large sum of money and much time Price of commodity made during the being expended on experiment to per- extended term to be limited. Ibid. 52. Privileges existing before the date of Proviso against transfer to more than The expenditure in perfecting an in- Objections to novelty of invention, saved. Ibid. 55. Use of invention in royal dock-yards Provisos limiting price, and against The superseding an article of impor- Proviso as to the price, and limiting fect the invention without any return, The invention being very meritorious, The misfortunes of the patentee and The new letters patent must be grant- In an application by an assignee the The application for an extension post- Costs of opposition given, the applica- Extension recommended in favour of 5 D Extension of term recommended, the The words "prosecuted with effect" Semble, That "prosecuted with ef- Patent extended under the provisions The merit and utility of the inven- The extension of term recommended The invention being meritorious, but Re The questions to be considered on ap- The absence of all profit during a Letters patent being about to expire, It is sufficient to establish a primá The profits amounting to about £6000, The petitioner having purchased the The actual expenses and receipts must The insufficiency of the usual term to Semble, That it is not necessary to An invention as described in the spe- The fact of an invention when known Semble, That negligence on the part In an application by an assignee, his The new letters patent are granted It is for the benefit of patentees that The fact of great improvements hav- the term. Ibid. 727. The expense of litigation, and the cost A manufacturer's fair profit must be In considering whether a patent The merit of the importer is less than The petition for an extension is not The fact of a further improvement An inference against the merit of the The interest of the inventor is medi- FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION. If the consideration fails, the letters Failure of execution a failure of con- If an invention wholly fail, or be alto- Partial and total failure of considera- The failure of consideration in respect FALSE SUGGESTION. False recital or suggestion a ground But it must be in respect of some- Letters patent for certain improve- Letters patent being for several things Letters patent for a watch, the inven- Letters patent for a new and improved Letters patent for sharpening knives, The novelty of every part of the in- The suggestion in a Scotch patent, False recital in letters patent not by False suggestion distinct from insuf- |