xii NAMES OF CASES. Names of Cases. Reported Page. Where reported in other works. is inconsistent with the exclusive right of the plaintiffs; and not only negatives exclusive enjoyment by Dyer (the patentee) and the plaintiffs, but shows that the title of the plaintiffs was disputed by the very party who now sets up exclusive enjoyment. If the difficulty had been only the generality of the statement in the bill, I should have supported the letters patent; but the allegations in the answer negative the exclusive enjoyment claimed by the plaintiffs. His Lordship dissolved the injunction, giving the plaintiffs liberty to bring an action, or to make a new application in another case, as there was no doubt from the answer that the defendant was infringing the patent.-Costs reserved. This was a petition to the Lord Chan cellor, that letters patent should pass the great seal, notwithstanding a caveat had been lodged against it. His Lordship referred the petition back to the Attorney-General, who, on hearing the parties, decided that the inventions were not similar; and the Attorney-General stated that he would so report to the Lord Chancellor. But the opposing parties requested a further hearing, in order that they might have an opportunity of showing that the petitioner's invention was old. Mr. Attorney-General granted the further hearing, and reported to the Lord Chancellor that the petitioner's invention was old. On this decision an application was made to the Lord Chancellor to seal the patent. His Lordship examined the invention, and also that said to be similar to it, and which had induced the Attorney-General to report that the invention was old; and his Lordship directed the patent to be sealed, and the opposing parties to pay the Erard's Patent, in re. their Lordships, in giving judgment, of notite & 26 aidT said, That in all such cases their Lord-hot 8 tolloy ships would require a strong case of adswon 698 309 31 hardship to be made out, as well as a senings boghol used bad strong case upon the utility of the in-corissy od barrel ide vention." od gained no odw lame-you 915w engilneva odt 3ds Lobioshineg Everington et als., Macintosh et als. v. Few v. Guppy 1 My. and Cr., On appeal from this decision the Lord tulge WOT The This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant for infringing a patent granted for improvements in paddle-wheels, which consisted in having the float-boards in parts, such parts being fixed on a cycloidal line, which would be generated by the wheel when rotating, and moved through space at the rate the vessel ought to be propelled by the power employed. defendant used less number of parts to each float board, but he fixed them within the line pointed out by the specification. The specification stated, that Mr. Field had made experiments previous to the patent, but had failed; and the question chiefly turned on the fact of whether Mr. Field had previously published the same invention. The jury found for the plaintiffs. Gillett et al. v. Wilby This patent was for improvements in public vehicles, called cabs, and consisted of so constructing such carriages that the passengers should enter in front and the driver's seat be behind. The evidence showed that the defendant had only infringed part of the invention. The declaration stated, that he had used and put in practice the improvements. On the part of the de 416 4 Bing., N. C., 706; 6 Dowl., 739; Webs. R., 264. 107 567 Webs. R., 521; 13 Rep. Arts, 4th S., 220. 540 9 C. and P., 334; Webs. R., 270; 13 Rep. Arts, 4th S., 121. 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 like those of the plaintiff's patent, the pieces, converging to a common centre, means of causing the parts to move outwards, and the shapes of the filling. pieces, 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 xvi NAMES OF CASES. 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. K. Kay's Patent, in re 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 prepar ing flax, hemp, and other fibrous substances-the macerating vessels marked B, and trough of water marked c, and 127 117 1 My. and Cr., 373; 1 Beav. 535; 1 Keen, 159 Cl. and Fin., |