Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

The applicant contended that this sum did not represent his profit as an inventor and patentee, but his profit as a manufacturer. But the Committee of the Privy Council said it was impossible to sever these two heads of profit. It was by means of the patent that he had made the profit. It had given him a monopoly preference; because, as patentee, he was enabled to sell and trade in a manner which, but for his invention and his patent, he could not have done. The application for a prolongation of the patent was refused (Muntz's Patent, 2 W. P. C. 113). (See also Hills' Patent, 1 Moore, P. C. C. N. s. 258; Saxby's Patent, L. R. 3 P. C. 292; S. C. 7 Moore, P. C. C. N. s. 82.)

A. M. Perkins obtained a patent in 1831 for improvements in an apparatus for heating air in buildings, heating fluids, &c. He applied, in 1845, for an extension of the patent, on the ground that he had been inadequately rewarded. The ingenuity of the invention, and its application to a great number of purposes, having been shown, the accounts were investigated; when it appeared that there had been a profit of £15,176 upon gross receipts to the amount of £64,920. The patentee claimed further to reduce the sum representing his profits, by deducting £500, the cost of experiment, £2700 interest at five per cent. on the average amount of capital employed, and £5400 for an allowance of £400 a year to the patentee for his personal superintendence of the business. These sums reduced the profits to £6576 net. An extension of five years was granted, the invention being ingenious and useful (2 W. P. C. 7).

An application for the extension of a patent for improvements in the manufacture of steel was opposed on the ground that, whereas the patented process consisted in the addition of carburet of manganese to the crucible, it had been subsequently discovered, that a

In

better process of making steel was to place carbonaceous matter and manganese separately in the crucible, and this process obtained generally in practice. The Privy Council thought that the merit of the original invention was not thereby materially detracted from, and they granted an extension for seven years. granting so long a time, the litigation going on in the courts of law was taken into account, as it was thought probable that some time would elapse before the litigation would terminate, and the patentee's representatives have the benefit of the extension granted (Heath's Patent, 2 W. P. C. 257).

Whitehouse, an ingenious mechanic, procured a patent for improvements in the manufacture of iron tubes, which he assigned to his master, Russell, who laid out £14,000 in works to carry out the manufacture. The tubes were in great demand, being applicable to a variety of new purposes; but, as the manufacture was simple, many expedients were resorted to to evade the patent, and Mr. Russell was involved in much litigation, in consequence of which, combined with the loss incurred by surreptitious manufacture and sale, his profits were very considerably reduced. On these grounds he applied for a prolongation of the patent, and produced evidence before the committee to show the value and importance of the invention, the losses he had suffered from infringements, and the great reduction that would take place in the value of the premises and machinery (much of which was fitted only for the particular manufacture) if the patent were thrown open. He further showed that his life had been endangered by the anxiety of certain law proceedings. One witness stated that, if the manufacture were thrown open, it would hardly be worth following; the process was so beautifully simple, that it would almost be within the reach of any person of capital.

Р

The net profits amounted to about £13,000; but this was shown to be not much greater than the ordinary profits on stock without the protection of a patent. Taking all this into consideration, seeing that the invention was of extraordinary merit, and that Mr. Russell had suffered greatly from the annoyance and anxiety occasioned by the litigation to which he had been subjected, the committee thought the patent ought to be extended for six years, the original patentee receiving £500 a year out of the profits for that time (Whitehouse's Patent, 1 W. P. C. 473).

A patent for forging and shaping small articles in metal was obtained by Mr. Ryder in 1841; when he applied for an extension, he pleaded that though the profits had been £7,000, they had only been made during the last four years. This, however, was held to be no ground for the application in the face of the large sum realized, and the petition was dismissed (Ryder's Patent, Pract. Mech. Jour. vol. vii. p. 238).

It will have been remarked, that the maximum period of extension in these cases was seven years. To induce the Judicial Committee to recommend an extension for fourteen years, a case of the strongest kind must be made out.

In Ruthven's Patent (Pract. Mech. Jour. 2nd series, vol. viii. p. 159), which was a patent for improvements in the propulsion of vessels, the invention was proved to have been of very great merit, and to have failed in being brought into general use through circumstances altogether independent of the will and without the fault of the inventor, who had not merely derived no profit but had suffered considerable loss from his patent. It was shown, moreover, that the Admiralty had then lately instituted experiments with a view to the adoption of the invention, and that several friends of the inventor were willing to embark

large capital in working the invention, should a prolongation be obtained. Evidence was also given that from the nature of the invention it would necessarily be a long time before its merit could be properly brought before the public. Under these circumstances the Judicial Committee (stating that they considered the case exceptional) granted a prolongation for the unusual period of ten years.

Where the invention is one of great merit, and the patentee has assigned his interest in it to another person for a sum which, looking at the profits likely to be derived from working the invention, appears an inadequate consideration, the Privy Council will see that the patentee receives further reward. With this view, a condition is sometimes introduced into the new patent, making it void in case a fixed annual sum, or a certain share in the profits, be not paid to the patentee by the assignee (Whitehouse's Patent, 1 W. P. C. 473; Hardy's Patent, 6 Moore P. C. C. 441). So also where a patentee had mortgaged his patent, and he and his mortgagees asked for a prolongation, it was granted to the patentee alone (Bovill's Patent, 1 Moore, P. C. C. N. s. 348). Again, where the petition had been presented by the patentee and the assignee of a moiety of the patent, and the patentee had died before the hearing, a prolongation was granted on the condition that the assignee should hold one moiety of the new term on trust for the personal representatives of the deceased patentee (Herbert's Patent, L. R. 1 P. C. 399). Other special conditions are sometimes inserted in the new letters patent; for example, that the patented article should be sold to the public at a certain price (Hardy's Patent, 6 Moore P. C. C. 441); that licences should be granted on certain terms (Mallet's Patent, L. R. 1 P. C. 308, S. C., 4 Moore, P. C. C. N. s. 175); or that the Admiralty should have the privilege of

using the invention (in this case, an improved propeller for steam and other vessels) without licences from the patentee (Pettit Smith's Patent, 7 Moore, P. C. C. 133). In the cases of Lancaster's Patent (2 Moore, P. C. C. N. s. 189), and Carpenter's Patent (ibid. 191), however, the Judicial Committee refused to insert this latter condition; and it would seem to be now unnecessary since the recent case of Feather v. The Queen (6 B. &. S. 257), where it was held that notwithstanding the grant of letters patent, the Crown has power to use the invention without the assent of the patentee. For instances of other special conditions introduced into the new letters patent, see Bodmer's Patent (8 Moore, P. C. C. 282); Normandy's Patent (9 Moore, P. C. C. 452).

« ZurückWeiter »