Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

5 N. R. 505. And see Drake v. Muntz's Metal Co., 3 R. P. C. 43.)

A licensee who is not a party to the action cannot be compelled to give inspection in an action against his licensor. (Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson, 3 R. P. C. 14.)

Particulars of Breaches.-By the Patents Act of 1883, sect. 29, the plaintiff in an action for infringement of a patent must deliver with his statement of claim, or by order of the Court or the judge at any subsequent time, particulars of the breaches complained of. The particulars may be from time to time amended by leave of the Court or a judge.

If the particulars delivered are insufficient, further and better particulars may be required. In Needham v. Oxley (1 H. & M. 248), it was held by Wood, V. C., that particulars of breaches are sufficient if, taken together with the pleadings, they give the defendant full and fair notice of the case made against him. See, however, the subsequent case of Curtis v. Platt (8 L. T. 657), before the same learned judge.

A plaintiff may be ordered to point out by reference to the pages and lines the parts of his specification which he alleges to be infringed. (Lamb v. The Nottingham Manufacturers' Company, Seton on Decrees, 4th ed. p. 349.) But this will not be required when the things alleged to be an infringement have been made an exhibit in the action. (Batley v. Kynock, No. 2, L. R. 19 Eq. 229.) Or when the particulars of breaches and the claims in the specification alleged to have been infringed sufficiently enable the defendant to know what he will have to meet at the trial. (Cheetham v. Oldham, No. 3, 5 R. P. C. 624.)

An application by a plaintiff for leave to amend his particulars of breaches may be made to the Court or a judge under sect. 29 (5) of the Act of 1883. An application by either party for an order for further and better particulars of breaches or objections may be made under R. S. C., O. XIX. r. 7.

Other cases bearing upon the amendment of particulars of breaches are Flower v. Lloyd (20 S. J. 860); Church

Engineering Company v. Wilson (3 R. P. C. 123); United Telephone Company v. Fleming (3 R. P. C. 268); Cheetham v. Oldham, No. 3 (5 R. P. C. 624).

Cases as to further particulars of breaches: Elsey v. Butler (1 R. P. C. 189); Tilghman's &c. Co. v. Wright (1 R. P. C. 103); Russell v. Hatfield (2 R. P. C. 144) ; Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co. (3 R. P. C. 351); Haslam Co. v. Hall (4 R. P. C. 203); Ehrlich v. Ihlee (5 R. P. C. 37).

Particulars of Objections.-The twenty-ninth section of the Patents Act of 1883, subsections 2 and 3, requires the defendant to deliver with his statement of defence, or by order of the Court or a judge at any subsequent time, particulars of any objections on which he relies in support thereof; and if the defendant disputes the validity of the patent, the particulars delivered by him must state on what grounds he disputes it; and if one of these grounds is want of novelty, he must state the time and place of the previous publication or user alleged by him. And subsection 5 enables the defendant to amend such particulars from time to time by leave of the Court or judge.1

If a defendant relies as an objection to a patent on general public knowledge of the invention before the date of the patent, he should not mention in his particulars of objection the several books or publications which he takes to be

1

Upon the corresponding section (41) of the Patents Act of 1852 the following cases have been reported:-Penn v. Bibby (L. R. 1 Eq. 548); Grover & Baker Company v. Wilson (W. N. 1870, p. 78); Flower v. Lloyd (L. R. 6 Ch. D. 297); Crossley v. Tomey (L. R. 2 Ch. D. 533); Plimpton v. Spiller (20 S. J. 859); Morgan v. Fuller, No. 2 (L. R. 2 Eq. 297).

It has been held that the objections cannot go beyond the pleas; they are merely to state more particularly what the pleas state generally. (Macnamara v. Hulse, 2 W. P. C. 128.) As to other points bearing upon this subject see Palmer v. Wagstaff (8 Exch. Rep. 840); Palmer v. Cooper (9 Exch. Rep. 231); Hull v. Bollard (1 H. & N. 134); Lister v. Leather (3 Jur. N. s. 816); Greaves v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (1 Ell. & Ell. 961; S. C. 5 Jur. N. s. 733); Talbot v. Laroche (15 C. B.310); Electric Telegraph Company v. Nott (4 C. B. 462): Fisher v. Dewick (1 W. P. C. 551 n.); Heath v. Unwin (1 W. P. C. 551); Jones v. Berger (1 W. P. C. 544 n.); Househill Company v. Neilson (1 W. P. C. 552); Holland v. Fox (1 C. L. R. 440).

proofs of that knowledge, or which gave to the public the means of acquiring it. General public knowledge must be proved by witnesses in the ordinary way at the trial, and they may refer if necessary to well-known books. In the meantime he may be required to strike out of his particulars those publications which go to prove public knowledge only. On the other hand, if a defendant relies on any publications as anticipations of the invention, he must state in his particulars the nature of the anticipation on which he relies, and what those publications are and where they are to be found; and must indicate that he relies on them as anticipations, and not as showing the state of public knowledge. In the case of a specification that part of the claim on which he relies should be shown. Generally speaking, he need not state particular pages of the books or specifications, unless the matter would be doubtful without that information. (Holliday v. Heppenstall, in the Court of Appeal, L. R. 41 Ch. D. 109; 6 R. P. C. 320.)

Previous to this enunciation of the practice a defendant had been ordered to give the pages and lines of the specifications and books to which he referred as anticipating the plaintiff's invention, and to state which of the claims in the plaintiff's specification had been anticipated by the prior specifications. (London and Leicester Hosiery Company v. Higham, Lawson's Patents Acts, 2nd ed. p. 498; see also Harris v. Rothwell, 1 Griff. P. C. 110.)

And another defendant, in referring to a book on which he relied as anticipating the plaintiff's invention, was ordered to refer to specified parts thereof, and where there were words in the particulars denoting reliance upon the whole of the various earlier specifications, they were directed to be struck out, leaving him at liberty to refer to pages and lines. (Harris v. Rothwell, 3 R. P. C. 243. And see Fowler v. Gaul, 3 R. P. C. 247.) However, it has not been unusual in practice to refer to the whole specification, and if there was no special complication this was not often objected to.

When objection is made in general words to a discon

formity between the provisional and the complete specifications, an order for better particulars may be obtained. (Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corporation v. Crompton, 4 R. P. C. 27.)

Under an objection that the invention is not new the defendant may show the want of novelty of one of two inventions described in the specification. (Sugg v. Silber, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 493.)

As to the terms on which leave to amend particulars of objection are granted under special circumstances, see Otto v. Steel (2 R. P. C. 139); Ehrlich v. Ihlee (4 R. P. C. 115). Here the form of the order as to costs, where the defendant applied to amend his particulars of objection after the case had been set down for hearing, was considered. Parker v. Maignen's Filtre Rapide Co. (5 R. P. C. 207). In this case the application to amend the particulars was made on the eve of trial. Blakey v. Latham (6 R. P. C. 29); S. C. on appeal (6 R. P. C. 184). In this case leave to amend was granted during the trial, which was adjourned.

Other cases bearing upon the amendment of particulars of objection are Boyd v. Horrocks (3 R. P. C. 285); Boyd v. Horrocks (5 R. P. C. 557); Parcall v. Toope (7 R. P. C. 125).

The following cases were decided under the old law with reference to the amendment by the defendant of his particulars of objection:-Penn v. Bibby (L. R. 1 Eq. 548); Wilson v. Gann (23 W. R. 546); Renard v. Levinstein (13 W. R. 229; 11 L. T. N. s. 505); Daw v. Eley (L. R. 1 Eq. 38); Edison Telephone Co. v. India-rubber Co. (17 Ch. D. 137).

Interrogatories.-In a suit for an injunction a defendant denying infringement may be compelled to answer whether he used the plaintiff's materials, whether he makes any addition to them, and whether such addition makes any difference. (Renard v. Levinstein, 10 L. T. N. s. 94.) As to the limits of such discovery see Crossley v. Tomey (2 C. L. D. 53); Crossley v. Stewart (1 N. R. 426); Rolls v. Isaacs (W. N. 1878, 36); Lister v. Norton (2 R. P. C. 68); Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co. (3 R. P. C. 351). As to the

discovery which a defendant in such a suit may obtain from the plaintiff as to his patent, see Renard v. Levinstein (11 L. T. N. s. 79); Hoffman v. Postill (L. R. 4 Ch. 673); Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson (3 R. P. C. 11); Edison & Swan Co. v. Holland (5 R. P. C. 213); Ehrlich v. Ihlee (5 R. P. C. 37).

A plaintiff may be interrogated as to documents in his possession relating to the preparation of his specification. (Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co., 3 R. P. C. 351.)

A defendant who has furnished particulars literally in compliance with the statute may be called upon to answer interrogatories as to the names and addresses of alleged prior users, and whether the machines are in existence. (Birch v. Mather, L. R. 22 Ch. D. 629.)

Order for Production of Models Refused.-In an action for the infringement of a patent for improvements in presses for pressing tiles, the plaintiff, after the delivery of particulars of objection, applied to a judge at chambers for an order for the production by the defendant to the plaintiff, before the trial, of all dies, models, and drawings of dies intended to be produced by the witnesses on behalf of the defendants at the hearing of the action. The judge held that as the articles called for were not shown to be in the possession or power of the defendants, he had no jurisdiction to make such an order, and the Court of Appeal held that he did rightly. (Garrard v. Edge, 6 R. P. C. 372.)

Inspection of Documents.-Communications between an inventor and his patent agent are not privileged, and therefore, where the patent agent of a party to an action for infringement is also his solicitor, the other party can claim to see the communications made to the solicitor in his capacity of patent agent, if there is otherwise no valid objection to the disclosure. (Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co., 3 R. P. C. 351.) In this case it was held that the defendants were entitled to inspect any communications between the plaintiff and his patent agent bearing upon the preparation of his specification under a patent for an invention which was closely connected with the invention under an earlier

« ZurückWeiter »