If an invention be new and useful on
the whole, there is no false suggestion.
Haworth v. Hardcastle, 483.

Part of the invention being useless
may not involve any false suggestion.
Morgan v. Seaward, 197,

As, where it is discovered that part
of the invention not claimed as essential,
may be altogether dispensed with.
Lewis v. Marling, 495.

Semble, That the subsequent inven-
tion and insertion in the specification of
a different mode of carrying out a prin-
ciple, which the patentee had reduced
into practice in one or more modes at
the time of the granting of the letters
patent, is no false suggestion. Crossley
v. Beverley, 114, n. a, & 116.

Semble, That it would be an objection
to a patent that a party did not insert in
his specification the most improved me-
thods with which at the time of enrolling
the specification he was acquainted.
Ibid. 116.

The rule, that if part of an invention
fails the patent is void, is a technical
rule to be interpreted strictly. Crossley
v. Beverley, 118.

The insertion of an improvement
made during the interval for specifying
is no fraud either on the crown or the
public. Ibid. 118.

The suggestion of the invention is the
foundation of the grant.
Minter v.
Wells, 129.

GRANT.

See CONSIDERATION. TERM.

To grantees for twenty-one years,
3 Jac. I (A.D. 1606), to make, utter, and
sell smalt, with power to all others to
use the same. Baker's patent, 9 & 10.

Grant determined by declaration of
crown, on failure of the parties to sup-
ply the country with smalt at reasonable
rates. Ibid. 11.

Fresh grant, 6 Jac. 1 (A. D. 1609), for
thirty-one years, on the same conditions.
Ibid. 11.

Preceding grant surrendered, and
fresh letters patent, 16th of February,
16 Jac. 1, for thirty-one years. Ibid. 12.

Grant of the sole making of cards void,
being contrary to law. Case of Mono-
polies, 2.

Grant of the sole importation of any
commodity, void. Ibid. 4.

As of foreign wine. Ibid. 4.
Subsequent or second grant of same
thing, void. 15, n. h.

Determination of former grant to be
recited in subsequent grant (6 H. 8,
c. 15). 15, n. h.

Grant in respect of a new trade, or an
engine tending to the furtherance of a
trade that never was used before, for a
limited time, good. Darcy v. Allin, 6;
Crane v. Price, 411.

Grant in respect of the working or
making of any manner of new manufac-
ture, for fourteen years, to the true and
first inventor, valid (Stat. 21 Jac. 1, c.3,
s. 6). 31.

Grant to be construed according to
the intent and meaning of the grantor.
R. v. Mussary, 41.

GRANTEE.

Where any man by his own charge
and industry, or by his own wit and in-
vention, doth bring any new trade into
the realm, or any engine tending to the
furtherance of a trade that never was
used before, and that for the good of the
realm. Case of Monopolies-Darcy v.
Allin, 6; Crane v. Price, 411.

The manufacturer within this coun-
try of an article previously sold here,
but imported from abroad. Baker's
patent, 9, 11 & 13.

The true and first inventor (21 Jac. 1,
c. 3, s. 6). 30.

The introducer of an invention, new
in England. Edgebury v. Stephens, 35.
See INVENTOR.

GREAT SEAL.

The great seal for different parts of
the United Kingdom distinct, notwith-
standing the acts of union, 49, n.

See CAVEAT.

IMPORTATION.

The grant of the sole importation of
any commodity, void. Case of Mono-
polies, 4.

As of foreign wines. Ibid.

Importation of glass from Scotland, or
any foreign parts, not to be restrained.
Mansell's patent, 26.

IMPORTER.

The importer or introducer of a ma-
nufacture entitled to a patent. Baker's
patent, 9, 11&12; Edgebury v. Stephens,

35.

IMPROVEMENT.

An improvement on an existing thing
is the subject of a patent. Hill v.
Thompson, 244.

But the invention must be strictly
confined to such improvement. Ibid.
245.

Also such patent is valid, although the
improvement be on an existing patent.
Ex parte Fox, 413.

Or, requiring the use of that of which
another has the exclusive right. Crane
v. Price, 412.

If any one of several inventions in
letters patent for improvements be not
an improvement, the patent is invalid.
Morgan v. Seaward, 197; Cornish v.
Keene, 505; Losh v. Hague, 204;
R. v. Arkwright, 72.

Cheapness of production is an im-
provement. Cornish v. Keene, 506.
See ADDITION and SUBJECT-MATTER.

been improved according to a patent pro-
cess, coupled with the fact of the defen-
dant having the means of practising
such process within his reach, evidence
for the jury on the question of infringe-
ment. Hall v. Boot, 101.

The question of infringement pecu-
liarly for the jury, who must say, whe-
ther the defendant has availed himself
of the invention of the plaintiff, with
such variation only as will prevent its
being a new discovery. Walton v.
Potter, 586.

A specious variation in form, or in-
genious alteration in the mode of adap-
tation, an infringement of the patent.
Ibid. 589.

Proof of the making of that which is
the subject of the patent, without evi-
dence of the sale or use of that so made,

is sufficient to constitute a breach of the
letters patent. Jones v. Pearce, 125.

The sale of an article of the same fa-
bric, and made in the same manner as
the article which is the subject of the pa-
tent, is evidence of a using of the inven-
tion within the prohibitory clause of the
letters patent. Gibson v. Brand, 630.

If the invention consist in applying
the air heated while in transitu, then,
however great the improvement, which
the defendant's apparatus may be, on
that described in the specification, it is
no less an infringement. Neilson v.
Harford, 310.

The improvements claimed must all
be shown to be new, though it need not
be shown that the alleged infringement
was an imitation of the whole of them,
an imitation of any one being sufficient
to maintain the action. Gillett v. Wilby,
270.

The identity of purpose, and not of
name, is the criterion in judging of the
similarity or dissimilarity of inventions.
Cutler's patent, 427.

The doing any of the acts specified in
the prohibitory clause of the letters pa-
tent, is an infringement. Walton v.
Bateman, 615.

The specification having described the
invention to consist in welding iron by
circular pressure through dies or holes,
the welding produced by passing the iron
through grooved rollers, though not so
perfect, is an infringement. Russell v.
Cowley, 462.

The inventor of a principle, coupled with some mode of carrying the principle into effect, is entitled to protection against other modes of carrying out the principle. Jupe v. Pratt, 146.

The substitute of one mechanical equivalent for another is but a colourable difference. Morgan v. Seaward, 171.

The substance of the invention and principle of the machine, and not the mere form, are to be looked to. Ibid.

The invention consisting in applying the air heated in transitu between the bellows and the furnace, however great the improvement made by the defendant on the method described by the plaintiff, it is no less an infringement. Neilson v. Harford, 310.

Exposing to sale not an infringement of the letters patent. Minter v. Williams, 136.

The specification claiming the shearing from list to list with a rotary cutter, the use of that cutter for such purpose is an infringement of the patent, without reference to the other mechanical arrangements employed. Lewis v. Davis, 490; 490, n. r.

The absence of certain parts does not make the alleged piracy no infringement. Jones v. Pearce, 124.

An act of sale not necessary to constitute or complete the infringement. Ibid. 125.

The patent being for the application of detonating powder to discharge firearms, mechanical arrangements apparently very different, whereby the same effect is produced, are an infringement. Forsyth's patent, 96.

Unless the particular arrangement be the substance of the invention. 97, n. b.

The invention claimed being the application of the self-adjusting leverage to the back and seat of the chair, any combination of that to the same subject is an infringement. Minter v. Wells,

Evidence of infringement. Galloway v. Bleaden, 523.

INJUNCTION.

Will be granted to restrain sale in England of Bibles printed in Scotland, during an exclusive privilege to print such books in England. Universities of O. & C. v. Richardson, 49.

Semble, That an injunction would not be granted to restrain the sale of a patent article, part of the private effects of a person. Ibid.

If there has been no infringement, the court have no power to make compensation for the injunction. Seaward, 168. Morgan v.

Ample justice may be done by the account. Ibid.

As, where the plaintiff would only be entitled to 1s. per ton on the iron made. Neilson v. Thompson, 286.

An injunction will be granted after expiration of patent, to restrain the sale of machines piratically made during the patent. Crossley v. Beverley, 119.

An account will be ordered of profits resulting from the use of metres pirati cally made during the patent. Crossley v. Derby Gas Company, 119.

Not usual to give security for damages occasioned by an injunction, in case the patent should turn out to be invalid. Bickford v. Skewes, 214.

Damages may in some cases be recovered by the defendants for the injury sustained by them, in consequence of the respondents having stopped works by interdict, instead of allowing the works to proceed by trusting to the caution offered at the passing of the bill. Stirling v. Roebuck, 50.

An injunction will not be granted until the right can be tried, if the damage consequent on the stoppage of the works is great and irreparable. Neilson v. Thompson, 286 & 50.

Or, where the plaintiff has permitted the defendant to go on and incur expense under the expectation of receiving a certain sum, the defendant being at liberty at any time to dispute the title of the plaintiff as patentee. Ibid. 286.

The grant of letters patent and exclu-
sive possession of some duration under
them, is a ground for injunction, without
previous trial at law; aliter, if the pa-
tent but of yesterday, and the validity
of the patent be denied. Hill v. Thomp-
son, 231.

If a person has had exclusive enjoy-
ment, the court will give credit to the
apparent right, and restrain its viola-
tion; but if doubts be entertained as to
the validity of the patent, the injunction
will be granted only on terms.
236.

Ibid.

Length of enjoyment is looked to in
answer to a theoretical objection to the
specification. Bickford v. Skewes, 213.

Enjoyment for twelve years a prima
facie case for an injunction, if an in-
fringement be shown. Neilson v. Thomp-
son, 277.

An injunction obtained ex parte dis-
solved, the defendants directed to keep
an account, the plaintiff put upon terms
of bringing an action, with liberty to

have the injunction revived after the
trial of action, or in case of any unrea-
sonable delay being interposed on the
part of the defendant. Hill v. Thomp-
part of the defendant.
son, 232.

An injunction obtained ex parte be-
ing disposed of, the defendants were
ordered to admit plaintiff's title, and to
keep an account, and to admit inspec-
tion of their premises, and to produce
books and papers. Morgan v. Seaward,

169.

Injunction dissolved where great mis-
chief would accrue to defendant by the
stoppage of works erected by the per-
mission of the plaintiff in expectation of
receiving ls. per ton on the iron made,
the utmost the plaintiff could be en-
titled to receive being fully secured to
him by the defendant undertaking to
keep an account, and to deal with as the
court shall direct. Neilson v. Thomp-
son, 286.

But where the defendant has paid
under a contract, and by breaking that
contract exposed himself to the conse-
quence of the stoppage of his works, the
injunction must be continued. Neilson
v. Fothergill, 289.

Injunction dissolved, the defendant
paying into court the money which had
become due under the contract prior to
the defendant giving notice of his in-
tention to dispute the plaintiff's title.
Ibid. 290.

On an application for injunction after
notice, ordered that the plaintiff be at
liberty to bring an action, provided the
declaration be delivered within a month,
and a mutual inspection of works of
plaintiff and defendant to take place.
Russell v. Conley, 458.

The injunction having been dissolved,
the plaintiff to bring an action to esta-
blish his patent right, and the defendant
to keep an account in the meanwhile; a
verdict having been obtained for the
plaintiff on the trial of the action, on ap-
plication being made to revive the injunc-
tion, it was objected that the defendants
intended to move for a new trial; and
the matter was ordered to stand over till
the result of that application should be
known; the parties continuing to keep
an account in the interim. Hill v.
Thompson, 238.

Injunction granted after action at law.
Russell v. Cowley, 471.

Injunction revived as of course after
judgment, establishing the validity of
the patent. Neilson v. Harford, 373.

The fact of an action being pending
against another party, is not a sufficient
ground for continuing an ex parte in-
junction, without putting the plaintiff to
bring an action against the new defend-
ant. Russell v. Barnsley, 472.

Injunction continued, the plaintiff un-
dertaking to bring an action to try the
right within three months, notwith-
standing another action pending. The
infringement to be admitted. Ibid. 473.

The court has authority to grant an
injunction simpliciter, and without im-
posing any terms; but such a course is
not usual. Wilson v. Tindal, 730, n.

It is not of right, but usual when an
injunction is granted, to impose on a
plaintiff the terms of bringing an action
to try the validity of his patent. Ibid.

INSPECTION.

Defendant ordered to permit an in-
spection of machinery made, or to be
made, in pursuance of a certain contract.
Morgan v. Seaward, 169.

Mutual inspection of works of plain-
tiff and defendant ordered. Russell v.
Cowley, 458.

INVENTION.

May be the result of accident, depend-
ing on no theory, but on a lucky experi-
ment. Liardet v. Johnson, 54.

Not essential that labour, thought, or
money, should have been bestowed on
invention. Crane v. Price, 411.

The application of known elements to
a particular purpose. Huddart v. Grim-
shaw, 86, 93, & 95.

INVENTOR.

1. At Common Law.

The introducer of a new trade into
the realm, or of any engine tending to
the furtherance of a trade, is the inven-
tor (44 El. A. D. 1602). The Case of
Monopolies-Darcy v. Allin, 6; Crane
v. Price, 411.

The introducer of an invention, or
mode of manufacture, from abroad.
Baker's & Mansell's patent, 9 & 17.

See GRANTEE.

2. By Statute.

The introducer of an invention new
in England, though practised beyond
the sea before, is the inventor within
the meaning of the statute 21 Jac. 1,
c. 3. Edgebury v. Stephens, 35.

He is the inventor who publishes the
invention to the world, not he who con-
fines it to his closet. Dollond's case, 43.

The discovery must not be confined to
the knowledge of the party making it,
but it must have been communicated,
more or less, or it must have been more
or less made use of, so as to constitute
discovery. Hill v. Thompson, 244.

The party making an unsuccessful
attempt or experiment, which becomes.
abandoned, is not an inventor. Jones
v. Pearce, 124.

He is not the inventor who has the
invention communicated to him from
another in this country. Tennant's
case, 125.

Even though by a person in his em-
ploy. Barker v. Shaw, 126.

But the inventor may employ an in-
genious person to perfect the details
of his invention. Minter v. Wells, 132.

An inventor may employ a professed
mechanic to perfect the mechanical de-
tails of his invention. Bloxam v. Elsee,
132, n. c.

Before the plaintiff took out his pa-
tent, a model of a similar machine was
made, unknown to him, and a machine
was begun to be made from it, but no
similar machine was ever used in this
country before the patent. Held, that
this was not sufficient to defeat the pa-
tent, it not being shown that the plain-
tiff had seen the model. Lewis v. Mar-
ling, 491.

The introducer is the inventor; it is
sufficient to support a patent, that the
invention is new as to general use and
public exercise. Ibid. 492.

Query, Whether, in order to invalidate
letters patent, it is necessary to show a
use which may be called at all general
as well as public. 493, n. y.