In this case the patent was for so constructing expanding dining and other tables, that the parts composing the original table should diverge from a common centre. Various arrangements of apparatus were shown and described in the specification for moving the several sections of the original tables. The defendant did not use any of them. His table, however, consisted of angular pieces, converging to a common centre, like those of the plaintiff's patent, the means of causing the parts to move outwards, and the shapes of the fillingpieces, or leaves, employed were different, which enabled the defendant to obtain a different form of enlarged table to that shown by the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiff. A rule nisi was subsequently obtained, and the whole question was argued before the Court. It was objected, that the patent was for a principle; and, also, that the plaintiff claimed a mode of acting invented by another. Mr. Baron Alderson.-You cannot take out a patent for a principle. You may 242 Webs. R., 145, 8 289 Rep. Arts, 4th Names of Cases. Reported Page. Where reported in other works. take out a patent for a principle coupled with the mode of carrying that principle into effect, provided you have not only discovered the principle, but invented some mode of carrying the principle into effect. It was objected, that the plaintiff had included one mode of causing the parts of the original table to diverge, which had been suggested by a workman. Mr. Baron Alderson.-If he (the patentee) invented one mode, he may get a person to invent another. The Court held, that under pleas which stated that the invention was not new, and that the patentee was not the inventor, a defendant cannot object that the patent was for a principle. To raise that question the pleadings must be directed to such an objection. This was an application to extend the term of the letters patent. Proceedings had for a long time been pending in the Courts of Law and Equity, and their Lordships at first doubted whether they ought to proceed before judgment had been obtained in favour of the patent; but on finding that the patent would expire before judgment could be obtained, their Lordships proceeded and reported in favour of extending it for three years; stating that, should the judgment of the Courts be against the validity of the patent, the proceedings before them would not alter the case. 168 3 Mo. P. C., c. 24; Webs. R., 568. This patent was taken for "new and improved machinery for preparing and spinning flax and other fibrous substances by power." The claim to invention was in respect of new machinery for preparing flax, hemp, and other fibrous substances the macerating vessels marked B, and trough of water marked c, and 127 159 117 1 My. and Cr., 373; 1 Beav. 535; 1 Keen, 190; 5 Bing., N. C., 492; 8 Cl. and Fin., 245; 7 Rep. Names of Cases. that which I claim, in respect to the improvements for spinning flax, hemp, and other fibrous substances, is the trough marked D, for holding the rovings when taken from the macerating vessel, and the placing of the retaining rollers and the drawing rollers nearer to each other than they have ever before been placed, say within two and a-half inches of each other. The defendant demurred generally, and the Vice-Chancellor ordered the matter to stand over, that the plaintiff might bring such action as he might be advised. Against this order the plaintiff appealed. His Lordship said, atter stating the contents of the bill, "To this bill the defendant put in a general demurrer, and, upon the argument in the Court below, the Vice-Chancellor ordered the demurrer to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an action to try the validity of the patent. No instance has been produced of such a course having been ever taken upon a demurrer; and I am of opinion, that however beneficial it might be in the result, by bringing the question in issue to a speedy determination, it is too great a departure from the practice of the Court, and too inconsistent with the nature of the question before the Court upon a demurrer, to be supported. Upon a demurrer no question of fact can be in issue. If the plaintiff, asking for equitable relief upon the grounds of a legal title, states upon his bill a title which cannot be supported at law, the defendant may take advantage of it by demurrer; but if the plaintiff states himself to stand in the position of having so far established his title at law as to give him at least a prima facie title, the Court will so far give credit to such circumstance as to afford him the aid of its jurisdiction until the suit shall be in such a state as to call upon the Court for a decision." The demurrer was overruled, and on hearing the case an action directed to be brought. The case was tried at York, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a special case for the opinion of the Court, and which was stated as follows:-"That before the granting of the patent, flax, hemp, and other fibrous substances, were spun at or with machines with slides, by which the reach was varied according to the length of staple or fibre of the article с Names of Cases. to be spun, and that that has been a fundamental principle of dry spinning known and used before the granting of the patent, the reach having varied in cotton-spinning between seven-eighths of an inch to one and a-half inch; in flax, or line-spinning, from fourteen to thirty-six inches; in tow-spinning from four to nine inches; in worsted-spinning from five to fourteen inches. But before the granting of the patent it was not known that flax could be spun by means of maceration, as having a short fibre at a reach of two and a-half inches, or about those limits. But before that time Horace Hall had taken out a patent, and the machines manufactured according to that patent were constructed with the reach of four and three-quarter inches." This case was sent by the Master of the Rolls to the Court of Common Pleas, and their Lordships reported their opinion that the patent was invalid in law; their Lordships considering, that it was not new to make spinning machinery with a reach of two inches and a-half, it having been the custom to make spinning machinery with reaches according to the length of fibre to be spun. Their Lordships also considered, that the macerating of flax having been described in Hall's patent, no valid patent could be taken out for that process. The patent was taken out for these two distinct processes. The Master of the Rolls agreeing with this opinion decreed accordingly, and the case came on ultimately before the House of Lords, as an appeal against the judgment of the Master of the Rolls. On the part of the patentee it was contended, that the patent must be taken to be for the combined process, not as a claim to the two separate things. And for the defendant it was urged, that the patent was for two distinct things, each of which, if infringed alone, would, if the patent be good, render a party liable to be an infringer. Their Lordships held, that it was not "one invention, namely, the macerating the flax, and using the flax so macerated with a particular machine," as contended for on behalf of the patentee, but a claim for improvements in machinery for spinning; and, according to the case as agreed on, looking at the machinery alone, there was no invention to support the patent. Their Lordships considered the patent void, and dismissed the appeal with costs. In this case the patent was taken for certain improvements in the construction of wheels for carriages to be used on railways. There were several claims to invention, consisting of means of forming spokes and rings of wrought iron wheels. An application was made for an injunction to restrain the defendant, in whose behalf it was contended that the plaintiff's invention was not new; to prove which fact the specification of a previous patent granted to a Mr. Paton was produced. His Honour the ViceChancellor granted an injunction, stating, that he had no doubt that the defendant had infringed the patent, but as doubts were raised in his mind by the specification of Paton's patent, the plaintiff must undertake to bring an action before the second day of Michaelmas term. In respect to the question of whether the plaintiff had come to the Court in time, his Honour said,-"On the 23d of March the plaintiff received some information that there was an invasion of his patent, and some portion of time, it appears, was spent in making inquiries; there was notice given distinctly on the 8th of May. Then some further correspondence takes place, and letters pass between the parties; and then a bill is filed on the 7th of July, and the application is virtually made. I cannot but think, therefore, that the plaintiff has come in sufficient time." 422 464 7 Dowl., 495; Webs. R., 202; 9 Rep. Arts, 4th S., 224. |