網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Claim for infringe ment of a patent.

1875, an instrument in writing, altered as hereinafter mentioned under his hand and seal, particularly describing the said invention, and in what manner the same was to be and might be used.

5. The plaintiff, with the leave and fiat of H.M.'s SolicitorGeneral first duly had and obtained for that purpose, and certified by his fiat and signature in that behalf, entered duly and according to law a disclaimer and memorandum of alteration of portions of the said specification, stating the reason for such disclaimer and alteration, and not being such disclaimer or alteration as extended the exclusive right granted by the said letters patent, which memorandum of disclaimer and alteration was on the 20th April, 1877, duly entered and filed in the Great Seal Patent Office with the said specification.

6. The defendants have on several occasions since the grant of the said patent right, and since the 20th April, 1877, infringed the said right as limited by the said disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, by causing to be constructed, and by selling and offering for sale within the said United Kingdom, machines constructed wholly or in fact according to or by means of the said invention as so limited, and also by causing to be constructed and selling and offering for sale within the said United Kingdom machines constructed by means of colourable imitations of the plaintiff's invention as so limited, or of parts thereof, in infringement of the said patent right as so limited. The defendants have derived considerable profits by means of such infringements.

7. By means of the premises the plaintiff has lost and been deprived of profits which would have accrued to him from his said patent right as so limited.

The plaintiff claims :-
(1.) £10,000 damages.
(2.) An injunction to restrain the defendants and each of

them from any repetition or continuance of the said
or any infringements of the said patent right as so

limited. (3.) An account of the profits derived by the defendants and

each of them from the sale of the said machines. (4.) Such further or other relief as the plaintiff's case

requires.

Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants deny that, by the letters patent of the Defence to 10th April, 1875, in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim for claim mentioned, any such exclusive rights were granted to ment of a the plaintiff as alleged in the said statement of claim. The patent. defendants further deny that the said supposed invention is an invention of improvements in mechanically feeding furnaces with fuel and in apparatus connected therewith, as alleged in the 1st paragraph of the said statement of claim.

2. The defendants deny that the said supposed invention, as limited by the so-called disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, was an invention of any manner of new manufacture.

3. The defendants further say that the said supposed invention, as limited by the so-called disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, was not and is not the working or making of any manner of manufacture for which letters patent can by law be granted.

4. The defendants deny that the plaintiff was the true and first inventor of the said supposed invention as alleged.

5. The defendants deny that the plaintiff caused to be filed in the Great Seal Patent Office, on the 6th day of October, 1878, an instrument in writing under his hand and seal, altered as in the statement of claim is mentioned, particularly describing the said supposed invention, and in what manner the same was to be and might be performed ; and the defendants further say that the plaintiff did not at any time within six calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said letters patent cause to be filed in the Great Seal Patent Office any instrument in writing under his hand and seal, particularly describing and ascertaining the nature of the said supposed invention, and in what manner the same was to be and might be performed.

6. The defendants deny that the plaintiff did, on the 20th April, 1877, duly and according to law enter and file in the Great Seal Patent Office with the said specification a disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, as alleged in the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim. The defendants further deny that the said so-called disclaimer and memorandum of alteration is not such a disclaimer or alteration as extended the exclusive right granted by the said letters patent; but the defendants say that, on the contrary, the said so-called disclaimer and memorandum

Defence to of alteration does extend the exclusive rights supposed to be claim for

granted by the said letters patent. infringement of a

7. The defendants deny that they have on several occasions, patent. or on any occasion since the 20th April, 1877, infringed the

said supposed patent rights as limited by the so-called disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, by causing to be constructed or by selling and offering for sale within the United Kingdom machines constructed wholly or in part according to or by means of the said supposed invention as so limited, or by causing to be constructed or selling and offering for sale within the said United Kingdom machines constructed by means of colourable imitations of the plaintiff's supposed invention as 80 limited, or of parts thereof, in infringement of the said alleged patent right as so limited. The defendants further deny that they have derived considerable or any profits by means of such alleged infringements as in the 6th paragraph of the statement of claim is alleged.

8. The defendants deny that the plaintiff has, by means of the alleged wrongful acts in the statement of claim mentioned, or by any wrongful act or acts of the defendants whatever, lost and been deprived of profits which would have accrued to him for his supposed patent right as so limited.

Action for disclosing an Invention about to be patented. Claim for 1. The plaintiff was and is the first and true inventor of disclosing an inven

certain improvements in the manufacture of certain kinds of tion about screws, and in tools and machinery to be used in the said to be patented.

manufacture, and had prepared certain drawings, tracings, and manuscripts illustrating the said invention, with a view of applying for and obtaining a grant of letters patent for the said invention, which the plaintiff with the defendant's permission left at the defendant's house, subject to the plaintiff's order and control.

2. The plaintiff shortly afterwards applied to the defendant for the said drawings and other effects, but the defendant wrongfully and improperly refused to deliver them or any of them to the plaintiff, and wrongfully detained and still detains them from the plaintiff, and by reason of the premises the plaintiff has been compelled to make other drawings and tracings, and thereby has been put to great loss, and has been much delayed in obtaining and did not in fact obtain a grant of letters patent for his said invention until long aster he Claim for otherwise could and would but for the defendant's wrongful disclosing

an invenacts as aforesaid have obtained the same.

tion about 3. The plaintiff further says that the defendant wrongfully to be

patented. and improperly, and without any authority from the plaintiff in that behalf, and while the said drawings and other effects of the plaintiff were in the possession of the defendant as aforesaid, showed and disclosed the said drawings and other effects, and thereby communicated the said invention to one R. B. Johnson, of Brussels, in the kingdom of Belgium, who, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, communicated the same to one P. W. in England ; and the said P. W. by the means aforesaid applied for and obtained the grant of letters patent for an invention and improvement in screws and other things alleged to have been an invention communicated to him from abroad; and the said P. W. opposed the grant to the plaintiff of letters patent for his said invention upon the ground (inter alia) that the alleged communicated invention aforesaid was identical with that of the plaintiff.

4. By reason of the premises, and in consequence of the delay aforesaid in obtaining a grant of letters patent for his said invention, which the plaintiff has since obtained, the plaintiff has been put to much cost and expense, and has lost considerable gains and profits which he might and otherwise would have made and acquired by means of the grant of the said letters patent, and generally the plaintiff's said invention has been and is much depreciated and diminished in value.

Penalty.
Action for Penalty for acting as a Medical Man without

a Qualification. 1. A plaint having been heretofore levied in the County Claim for Court of N., holden at N., against G. S., at the suit of the penalty for

acting as a Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothe- mecical caries of the city of London, the same was, by order of the man with: Exchequer Division of this Court dated the — day of

out a quali

*, fication. 18—, removed into this Court, and the said G. S. has since duly appeared in the said division (a).

(a) This paragraph will of course only be introduced where, as in the

Claim for 2. The defendant was a pharmaceutical chemist carrying on
penalty for business at N.
acting as a
medical 3. On the day of — 18—, the defendant, in his shop
man with: at N., examined medically one T. J. D., and thereupon for
out a quali
fication. reward supplied the said T. J. D. with medicine of the

defendant's own selection, and with medical advice.
4. On the day of 18—, and on the day of

, 184, the defendant in his said shop examined medically one D. H., and thereupon for reward supplied the said D. H. with medicine of the defendant's own selection, and with medical advice.

5. At various other times within six calendar months next before the - day of —, 18—, the defendant examined patients medically in order to ascertain the nature of their diseases, and thereupon for reward supplied them with medicines of his own selection, and gave advice with a view to the cure of their internal and other diseases.

6. The defendant has never received the certificate mentioned in the 14th section of the statute of 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, nor was he practising as an apothecary either before or on the 1st August, 1815.

7. The plaintiffs contend that by the conduct set out in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 the defendant has acted or practised as an apothecary within the meaning of the 20th section of the said statute, and that in consequence of such acting or practising, and of the facts stated therein, the defendant is liable to a penalty of £20, according to the provisions of the said statute. The plaintiffs claim £20.

Statement of Defence. Defence. 1. The defendant denies each and every the allegations con

tained in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th paragraphs of the statement of claim.

2. In further answer to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs, the defendant says that he did not, at the times therein mentioned or at any other times, examine medically the said T. J. D., or the said D. H., or any other persons as therein alleged.

3. In further answer to the same paragraphs, the defendant

case given, the action has been transferred from an inferior to a superior Court.

« 上一頁繼續 »