![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.at/books/content?id=lHozAAAAIAAJ&hl=de&output=html_text&pg=PA684&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015063559812&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1YbhG_I0h_N-1JQLE4AaomM3XUmw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=181,181,569,30)
plaintiff shall bring an action. give any special directions as to admissions, but it does appear to me that the case stands in such a shape that it will be too much to infer from these very singular affidavits, which contain a series of conduct of a most extraordinary kind with respect to the agreement and the treaty on it; it does appear to me to be too much to infer from those affidavits that there has been a clear admission on the part of the defendants, that what the defendants are doing is the same thing as what the plaintiff has taken out a patent for, or to infer that the defendants have admitted their patent to be only for that thing for which the plaintiff has taken out his patent, or to infer that the defendants have at all conceded any point; which if I do correctly understand their affidavits, they were determined from the beginning to defend as manfully as by law they might, and perhaps by other means if necessary. And it does appear to me, therefore, that in this case the proper order to be made is to direct the plaintiff to bring such action as he may be advised, and to direct the motion to stand over, with liberty for both parties to apply.
Parties making experiments with reference to any manufactures, and
even to some extent producing articles according to means subsequently
patented by others, such patents will not be invalidated if the parties have
failed to bring them into public use, or have abandoned their efforts before
success, even though the experiments have been more or less public.-
Cornish v. Keene, 314; Galloway v. Bleaden, 567; Macintosh v. Evering-
ton, 186
The Court of Queen's Bench will not issue a mandamus, commanding
the Lords of the Treasury to fix the terms or prices for anchors made by
the Admiralty according to the plaintiff's patent.-Ex parte Perring, 234
A patentee, who claims more than is useful, may alter and disclaim the
same after verdict against the patent.-Morgan v. Seaward, 104
A demurrer to a bill to restrain an infringement of a patent, by reason
of the bill not setting out the specification, is not good.-Westhead v.
Keene, 429
The Court will not dismiss a bill on the coming in of the answer if the
plaintiff undertakes to proceed at law to try the validity of the patent,
and the question of infringement.-Westhead v. Keene and others, 448
A caveat against the sealing of a patent at the Great Seal will be dis-
missed with costs, notwithstanding the Attorney-General may have
reported against the novelty of the invention.-Cutler's Patent, 527
A Judge, at the trial of a patent cause, will certify that the validity of
the patent came into question on the plea that the invention was not new.
-Gillett v. Wilby, 561
Claims, when inserted in a specification, are not in aid of the descrip-
tion of the invention, but a means of ascertaining what is new.-Kay v.
Marshall, 122
The combination of two things which are separately old in a process of
manufacture is a good subject for a patent.-Crane v. Price, 669
CONFIRMATION, See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83”—
The Court will not confirm letters patent where it is shown that the
specifications of previous patents granted very many years before, con-
tained a like invention, although the invention is shown to be useful, and
that it had never before been brought into public use.-Westrup and Gib-
bins' Patent, 219
If a patent is for two or more things, and one is old or not useful, the
patent is bad.-Morgan v. Seaward, 103
COSTS, See "Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83 "-
The Privy Council will give costs to the party opposing an application
to confirm letters patent when the petitioner fails.-Westrup and Gibbins'
Patent, 233
At the Great Seal, costs will be given against the party opposing a
patent passing through that stage.—Cutler's Patent, 531
A Court will not grant a defendant the right of having from the
plaintiff specimens of his manufacture in order to test the validity of the
patent.-Crofts v. Peach, 233
Where a general demurrer has been filed to a bill for an account
and to restrain infringement, the Court will not order the question of
demurrer to stand over till a trial at law to ascertain the validity of the
patent, but will go into, and settle the question of the propriety of the
demurrer.-Kay v. Marshall, 129
In case of a general demurrer to a bill, all the statements in the bill must
be taken to be true, and if the plaintiff makes out such a title which un-
answered would sustain his right to a patent, a general demurrer is bad.—
Kay v. Marshall, 124
A demurrer to a plea that a party had infringed before the date of a
disclaimer held to be bad.-Perry v. Skinner, 404
If a party proceed on a contract to recover moneys for the purchase of
patents, and the defendant plead that part of the patents are void, a
demurrer to such a plea is good, for unless the whole contract be fulfilled,
it fails altogether.-Chanter v. Leese, 422
A demurrer to a bill, because it does not set forth the specification of a
patent, is bad.-Westhead v. Keene, 429
A patentee may disclaim a part of his invention after verdict adverse to
the validity of a patent, and thus set up the new and useful parts of the
patent.-Morgan v. Seaward, 104
The Master of the Rolls will not remove a disclaimer from the roll
though it may extend the grant, such a disclaimer being void by the Sta-
tute.-Sharpe's Patent, 462
The Court of Chancery will aid a defendant in ascertaining whether a
patent is held in trust for more than the number of persons allowed by the
grant.-Few v. Guppy, 235
An error in a drawing showing two parts, so that they would not move,
though stated to do so in the specification, would not invalidate a patent,
for a workman, being told that they were to move, would correct the error.
-Morgan v. Seaward, 37
Where the differences made by a defendant do not change the principle
of an invention, they are mechanical equivalents.-Morgan v. Seaward,
In a drawing showing two parts, so formed that they would not move,
although they were described in the specification as moving, such error
will not invalidate a patent, as a workman would correct such an error.-
Morgan v. Seaward, 97
The Court will retain an injunction where the patentee has had six
years' exclusive enjoyment.-Bickford v. Skewes, 449
An experiment in a man's study or closet, if it fails, there is an end of
it.-Cornish v. Keene, 366
If a man makes experiments and never communicates them to the world,
and they are forgotten, another person making like experiments may take
a patent-Cornish v. Keene, 366
That there had been many experiments made in the same line, and
almost tending to the same result is clear, and that those experiments
were known to many persons.-Galloway v. Bleaden, 610
EXTENSION OF TERM OF LETTERS PATENT, See "Statute
5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83 "-
Swaine's Patent, 515; Stafford's Patent, 516; Wright's Patent, 517—
519; Kollman's Patent, 520; Robert's Patent, 521; Downton's Patent,
522; Erard's Patent, 112; Galloway's Patent, 107; Kay's Patent, 168
A Court of Equity will relieve a party from the consequences of a
deed on ascertaining that the party was induced to enter into it by
fraudulent representations of a patentee that his invention would do
certain things which he knew it would not.-Lovell v. Hicks and others,
182
The Lord Chancellor will pass a patent through the Great Seal notwith-
standing a caveat has been entered, and the Attorney-General has re-
ported against the novelty of the invention.-Cutler's Patent, 527
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff is, that it is cheaper, and
cheapness is an improvement.-Cornish v. Keene, 363
A jury is to look at the substance and not to the form of the parts: if in
substance the result is obtained by the same principle as the plaintiff's in-
vention, differing only in the use of mechanical equivalents, it will be an
infringement.-Morgan v. Seaward, 89
The question whether the defendant has not adopted what is equiva-
lent, is for the jury.-Jupe v. Pratt, 308
Where a patent only describes the use of all anthracite coal in the
making of iron by hot blast, the claim being for the combined use of an-
thracite and hot blast, the patent will be infringed by the use of hot blast
to one-third anthracite and two-thirds of coke of bituminous coal.-
Crane v. Price, 674
If the patentee has been long in the possession of his patent, the Court
will not disturb the title, but give credit thereto till the right has been
tried at law.-Bickford v. Skewes, 453
The Court will grant an injunction although the defendant may under-
take not to infringe again.-Losh v. Hague, 513; Morgan v. Seaward,
1; Abbott v. Williams, 381: Curtis v. Cutts, 430; Kay v. Marshall,
117; Lukey v. Robson, 413; Parkin v. Harrison, 657; Westhead v. Keene,
428
Abbott v. Williams, 381; Morgan v. Seaward, 1
The causing of a continuous layer of fibres to be cemented into a fabric,
is an invention for which letters patent may be secured.-Abbott v. Wil-
liams, 383
The fixing of parts of a float-board of a paddle-wheel at an angle which
would cause each part to enter at the same place, is an invention for which
letters patent may be taken.-Galloway v. Bleaden, 567
The combining in the same fabric, elastic warp, and inelastic warp in the
same plane, may be secured by patent.-Cornish v. Keene, 314
The combination of two things, each old, in an old process of manufac-
ture, is an invention for which letters patent may be granted.-Crane v,
Price, 672
The constructing a two-wheel carriage, so that the driver may sit
behind, and the passenger enter in front, is an invention for which a legal
patent may be secured.-Gillett v. Wilby, 540
The dividing the surface of a table in parts, pointing to a centre, and
causing such parts to diverge from that centre, so as to make openings to
receive filling pieces, is an invention which may be secured by patent.—
Jupe v. Pratt, 242
The combination of several parts of a paddle-wheel, so as to cause the
float-rods to enter and leave the water at desired angles, is an invention
which may be protected by patent, although all the parts separately are
old.-Morgan v. Seaward, 96
|