Section 13 makes office copies, sealed with the Chancery common-law seal, evidence of the contents of such records, and that they are records of the Court of Chancery.

14. The due enrolment of specifications, disclaimers, and memoranda of alterations enrolled in the Enrolment Office in Chancery, may be proved by the certificate of the clerk of the Enrolment Office, indorsed on the specification, stating that the specification has been enrolled in the office, and the day of the enrolment; such certificate being stamped with the seal of the Chancery Enrolment Office.(n)

All documents or writings stamped with the seal of the Chancery Enrolment Office, including drawings thereunto annexed, are to be deemed true copies of such enrolments, and of such drawings; and shall be received in evidence as proving the contents of such enrolments, and that they are records of the court, and of the date of filing or entering them.(o)

15. Copies of enrolments in the Rolls Chapel Office, certified by the deputy keeper of records, or one of the assistant record-keepers, and purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the Record Office, are by stat. 1 & 2 Vict. cap. 96, ss. 12, 13, made evidence without further or other proof.

16. Should the enrolments be removed from these offices to the office for filing specifications in Chancery, the time and fact of the enrolment may be proved by an examined copy of the enrolment of the specification, and of the certificate of enrolment, written at the foot of it, signed by the officer in whose eustody it is.(p)

Until the making of the several statutory provisions for facilitating the proof of specifications, the only mode of proving them was by producing the original specifications from the offices.

17. The entry of a disclaimer with the clerk of the patents, seems to be only proveable by the production of the original copy entered.

18. There shall be kept at the office appointed for filing specifications in Chancery under this Act, a book or books, entitled, "The Register of Proprietors," wherein shall be entered, in such manner as the Commissioners shall direct,

(n) Stat. 12 & 13 Vict. cap. 109, s. 18.
(0) Stat. 12 & 13 Vict. cap. 109, s. 19.
(p) See 14 & 15 Vict. cap. 99, s. 14.

the assignment of any letters patent, or of any share or interest therein; any license under letters patent, and the district to which such license relates, with the name or names of any person having any share or interest in such letters patent or license; the date of his or their acquiring such letters patent, share, and interest; and any other matter or thing relating to or affecting the proprietorship in such letters patent or license. "And such register, or a copy, shall be open to the inspection of the public at the office of the Commissioners of Patent, subject to such regulations as the Commissioners shall make." (q)

On the entry of an assignment or license, a stamp-duty of ten shillings is payable; for every search and inspection, one shilling. Certified duplicates of all entries made in the register of proprietors, are to be forthwith transmitted to the office of the Commissioners in Edinburgh and Dublin, where the same shall also be open to the inspection of the public.(r) 19. A copy of any entry in the "Register of Proprietors, certified under such seal as may have been appointed, or may be directed by the Lord Chancellor to be used in the office for filing specifications in Chancery, shall be given to any person requiring the same, on payment of the fees in the Act provided. And such copies so certified, shall be received in evidence in all courts and in all proceedings, and shall be prima facie proof of the assignment of such letters patent, or share or interest therein, or of the license or proprietorship as therein expressed.(s)

Every certificate of assignment or license is subject to a stamp-duty of five shillings. (t)

20. Until an entry is made in this book, the grantee or grantees of the letters patent shall be deemed to be the sole and exclusive proprietors of such letters patent, and of all licenses and privileges thereby given and granted.(u) It would therefore appear, that the production of a deed of conveyance or of a license, would not be sufficient evidence of the title of the person named therein.

21. The falsification of entries in the " Register of Proprietors," is a misdemeanour. If any person shall wilfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in the "Register of Proprietors," or shall wilfully make or forge, or cause to be made or forged, any writing falsely purporting to be a copy of any entry in the said book, or shall produce or tender, or cause to be produced or tendered in evidence, any such writing, knowing the same to be false or forged, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be punished by fine and imprisonment accordingly.(x)

We have seen that erroneous entries in this book may be expunged by an order of the Master of the Rolls, or a Court, or judge of a superior court of common law. (y)

(x) Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. cap. 83, s. 37.

(y) Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. cap. 83, s. 38, ante, p. 148.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Remedies of Patentee.-Action against Infringer.

SECTION I.-NATURE OF REMEDY.

1. THE remedies available to the patentee are by action to recover damages for any injury he may have sustained by the invasion of his privilege, by injunction to restrain infringements for the future, and by suit or order for an account of the profits which have been made by the offending parties by the wrongful use of the invention.

2. Until the passing of 15 & 16 Vict. cap. 83, s. 42, courts of law had no power to issue injunctions, or order an account of profits. Before 14 & 15 Vict. cap. 99, they could not compel the disclosure of evidence exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant. Now, in any action in any of her Majesty's superior courts of record at Westminster and in Dublin for the infringement of letters patent, it shall be lawful for the Court in which such action is pending, or for any judge of such court, on the application of the plaintiff or defendant respectively, to make such order for an injunction, inspection, and account, and to give such direction respecting such action, inspection, and account, and the proceedings therein respectively, as to such Court or judge may seem fit.

3. For the future, it is probable that the greater part of patent litigation will commence and be determined in the superior courts of common law. The above-cited enactment, in conjunction with the provisions of stat. 14 & 15 Vict. cap. 99, will, in almost all cases, supersede the necessity of proceeding in Chancery. (a)

(a) As to a bill of discovery in aid of a defence, see Few v. Guppy, 1 M. & Cr. 487.

4. The right conferred by letters patent appears to be a franchise within the meaning of that word in stat. 9 & 10 Vict. cap. 95, s. 58, and therefore, if a plaint for the infringement of a patent is entered in the County Court, the jurisdiction of the court would be ousted by any defence putting the title of the patentee, or the validity of the patent, in question.

5. Hitherto, patentees relying chiefly on their remedies in the Court of Chancery, have seldom obtained or asked for more than nominal damages in actions for the infringement of a patent. There is often considerable difficulty in laying down rules as to the principle on which the damages should be assessed. In Neilson v. The Househill Company, tried before Lord Justice-Clerk Hope, it was proved that the saving by the use of the plaintiff's patent apparatus was £2. 2s. per ton of iron manufacture. The answer was, that profit was not made. The judge said, "That is no answer in point of law. It is for the jury to say whether that saving amounted to £3,400, the sum calculated. I am bound to tell you that in point of law the pursuer is entitled to claim the benefit of the saving made by the use of his apparatus. But it is said, it does not follow that he is entitled to obtain in law the whole of that saving. It is impossible to take it as a legal estimate, from which you are not to depart in deliberating on the claim. If you find for the pursuer, you are entitled to weigh the whole matter in your minds.(b)

"Then there is another branch of damage,-compensation for the invasion of the patent. Now, the invasion of a patent is just as much an invasion of a man's rights as if you were to make an inroad into his house, or if you were to trespass on his property. It is an injury done to him, and therefore he is entitled to compensation."(b) In Neilson v. Baird, it was said that damages ought to be given against the infringer for the injury to the sale of licenses.(c)

6. A person whose patent right is infringed and denied, and attempted to be destroyed, is not to receive as damages merely the price for which he would peaceably and willingly have sold the use of it to any person coming to ask him for a

(b) Neilson v. The Househill Company, Webst. P. C. 697, n. See Crossley v. Derby Gas Company, 3 M. & Cr. 428.

(c) Neilson v. Baird, Decisions of the Court of Session, 2nd ser. vol. vi. 51.