restrained, they would inflict irreparable injury on the plaintiff. Mr. Muntz was quite willing that his title should be tried at law, but in the mean time he insisted that his interests ought to be protected by a court of equity. The cases of "Bowman v. Taylor," 2 Adolphus and Ellis; "Hale v. Thompson;""Bickford v, Skewes ;" "Russell v. Cowley;" the case of "Oxford and Cambridge," in 6 Vesey; and "Hullett v. Haig," 2 Barnewell and Adolphus, 377, were cited. Mr. Follett, in answer to a question from his Honour, said that the plaintiff was in a condition to prove that the patent had been infringed by the defendants, without any admission on the part of the defendants; for that they had issued circulars to the trade, in which they stated that, as untrue reports had been propagated as to the legality of their continuing the manufacture of these plates, they would be willing to indemnify any persons who might suffer any damage by dealing with them. For the defendants, it was said, that the issue to be tried, was whether or not the present was a valid patent,? a point which the defendants negatived. In the Repertory of Arts, they found, for the year 1804, a specification of a patent of a Mr. Collins, precisely like that alleged to be the invention of the plaintiff. His Honour. Was the plaintiff ignorant of the invention of Mr. Collins? Mr. Parker.-Mr. Muntz says that he is the true and original inventor, and denies that his was the same as Collins' invention. The plaintiff's case is, that his metal is manufactured from "the best selected copper, an article of commerce not known at the time Collins obtained his patent." The patent of Collins consisted of" red, yellow, and white metals," all composed of copper and zinc, in different proportions, and the defendants allege that the second," the yellow metal," was exactly the same as that of the plaintiff's alleged invention. -- His Honour. As both compositions consist partly of copper, I wish to know whether such copper as was used in 1804, will do for the purposes of Mr. Muntz's patent? Mr. Wigram. My case is that only "the best selected copper" will do, and that that article was not known until within the last few years. Mr. Parker proceeding, said that the second ground on which the defendants relied, was, that there had been no exclusive enjoyment of the patent-that is to say, uninterrupted enjoyment. The patent was never worked until September, 1837. The defendants paid Mr. Muntz £1,000. for his invention, and, therefore, if shortly after the agreement they had been aware of the invalidity of the patent, it would not have been consistent with their interest to state their opinion, at all events, until they found other parties infringing the patent. So early, indeed, as 1837, the defendants wrote to the plaintiff, saying, "The patent is all humbug." Before the dissolution of the partnership, a bill had been filed by the plaintiff and defendants against Messrs. Vivian, of Swansea, for an infringement of the patent, and Mr. Muntz had not then, as he might have done, tried his right at law. Infringements had also been proved to have been made by Lyon and Newton, and Mr. Freeman. The affidavit of Sears proved that "the best selected copper was smelted in exactly the same manner as the best cake or tithe copper, in the same furnace, at the same time, and by the same process; and that it was used, to his own knowledge, for many years before 1831." The defendants, therefore, insisted that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief he prayed, but they were quite willing to account until the right could be decided at law. Mr. Hetherington was heard on the same side. His Honour. The first question is, whether, for the limited purpose of the present interlocutory application, and as between these parties only, the patent is or is not to be taken to be valid ? The utility of the process is not questioned. The specification has not been strongly attacked, and it appears that there has been a conviction on the part of the defendants that the invention is the plaintiff's, and that the specification is not insufficient. The main question is, as to the originality of the alleged invention. Now, how does that stand on the evidence? The patent is dated the 22d of October, 1832. Negotiations took place during the following year between the plaintiff and defendants, for the purpose of working (as it is called) the patent in partnership together. That negotiation ripened into a contract on the 24th of September, 1835, by which the plaintiff and defendants agreed to carry on the business together for a term commensurate with the duration of the patent, subject to the notice for dissolution which has been mentioned. The articles of agreement, though not in precise terms, recite the validity of the patent, proceeding upon the notion that they were dealing with a valid patent. In 1835, the specification of an expired patent was observed in a scientific publication, which was brought to the attention of the plaintiff and defendants as being likely to affect the validity of the patent in which they were jointly interested. On that occasion, the plaintiff in substance offered the defendants to close his connexion with them, if they were dissatisfied. This offer was refused, and the partnership went on as usual until May, 1842, when the parties, not being able to agree (why, was not shown), notice of dissolution was given by the defendants to the plaintiff, in accordance with the articles of agreement. On the 17th of June, 1842, the partnership expired, the result of which was to revest the patent wholly in the plaintiff. Some time before this, Vivian was supposed to have infringed the patent, and a bill was filed against him in this court by the present plaintiff, and the defendants jointly, as co-plaintiffs, and an injunction was moved for.* That suit was conducted by the private solicitor of the present defendants, as I collect, and they used, as a main part of the materials on which they applied for the injunction, an affidavit, made by Mr. Muntz, in which he swore precisely as to the originality of the invention. Under these circumstances, can I, for the present limited purposes, and as between the present parties, refuse to let this injunction go? If I were of opinion that I ought so to do, then the question of enjoyment or disturbance becomes of less importance than otherwise it would be. It appears that the plaintiff, from the first, has manufactured sheathing from his patented plan. He endeavoured to make his invention * For an account of this injunction, see Vol. XIX., Conjoined Series, p. 460. public for the purpose of selling it. It appears that there existed a strong impression in the trade against it; and, as it would appear, from prejudice and ignorance of its real merits, for no one seemed to dispute that it was a meritorious invention. At first, therefore, it had no considerable sale; but in 1837, the patent appeared to be set actively at work, and was more known and taken up by the trade. Between 1838 and 1841, there was an attempt made to invade it by a party named Cutler, but he soon desisted. There are only three instances of infringement-one by Vivian, another by Lyon and Newton, and a third by Freeman. Against this there is that species of enjoyment by the plaintiff which has taken place to the extent before mentioned, previously to the partnership, and a substantial, full, and complete enjoyment during 1838, 1839, and 1840. Considering, therefore, if the view I take be correct as to the manner in which I have, for the present purpose, treated the question of the validity of the patent, I think I must consider the infringement as a slight disturbance. I shall, therefore, order the injunction as between the present parties, the plaintiff undertaking to abide by such order as the Court may think fit as to compensation, and undertaking immediately to bring his action to try the question of the validity of the patent; the trial to be in Middlesex; the plaintiff to commence within a week, unless prevented by the defendants, and to deliver the declaration in three weeks. List of Disclaimers OF PARTS OF INVENTIONS AND Amendments MADE UNDER LORD BROUGHAM'S ACT. From the frequent disclaimers of portions of patented inventions, which are, from time to time, allowed by the Attorney and Solicitor-General, under the new Act, it has become difficult, in many instances, to obtain, from the specification, an exact knowledge VOL. XXI. 2 U of the features of novelty intended to be held by patentees. We have, therefore, thought it desirable to lay before our readers an official list of all disclaimers and amendments to the titles and specifications of patents which have been granted since the passing of the Act, in order that parties concerned in similar inventions, may (being aware of an alteration,) be enabled to refer to the documents which will be found attached to the roll with the specification. Although we do not consider these documents of sufficient general interest to publish verbatim in our Journal, yet believing the list of disclaimers and alterations to be an useful feature, we shall, when publishing an amended specification, direct attention to that amendment, by note or otherwise. Benjamin Rotch,-disclaimer and memorandum of alterations to patent dated 20th March, 1830, for " improved guards or protections for horses' legs and feet, under certain circumstances." Filed 22d December, 1835. John Cooper Douglas,—disclaimer to patent dated 19th November, 1833, for "certain improvements which prevent either the explosion or the collapse of steam and other boilers, from an excess of internal or external pressure." Filed 8th January, 1836. Charles Jones, ditto to patent dated 12th June, 1833, for " a new arrangement of additions to, and alterations in, certain parts of gun and pistol locks." Filed 26th January, 1836. Stephen Perry, Edward Massey, and Joseph Gauci,-ditto to patent dated 20th September, 1834, for "certain improvements in pens and pen-holders." Filed 30th April, 1836. William Losh,—ditto to patent dated 31st August, 1830, for "certain improvements in the construction of wheels for carriages, to be used on railways." Filed 27th May, 1836. William Symington,—ditto to patent dated 7th November, 1835, for "certain improvements in the machinery for propelling ? vessels by steam, parts of which are also applicable to motive |