had been entered at the great seal, it
was referred to the Attorney General to
report whether the letters patent should
issue. Cutler's patent, 418.

The Lord Chancellor has authority to
withhold the great seal if he sees fit;
the reference to the Attorney General
under the circumstances of the case is for
the information of the Chancellor. Ibid.
424.

CERTIFICATE.

The defendant having pleaded, deny-
ing the novelty of the invention, the
validity of the patent may be consi-
dered as having come in question so as
to entitle the plaintiff to a certificate to
that effect under the 3d section of the
statute 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83. Gillett v.
Wilby, 270.

An action on the case for the infringe-
ment of a patent is within the operation
of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2; and notwith-
standing the provisions of the statute
5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, s. 3, the plaintiff re-
covering only nominal damages, cannot
have his full costs or treble costs without
a certificate under the former act. After
taxation the judge has no power to
grant such certificate. Gillett v. Green,
271.

The certificate under 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83,
s. 6, should have reference to the notice
of objections, and not to the issues. Losh
v. Hague, 209.

See COSTS.

Or, where the patent claims a general
principle or mode which is old, not the
particular means for carrying out such
principle or mode. R. v. Cutler, 71.

As where the specification claims the
application of a self-adjusting leverage to
the back and seat of a chair, it appearing
that had been so applied before, though
in such a manner as to be incapable of
acting by reason of its being encumbered
with other machinery. Minter v. Mower,
142.

Semble, That a claim for an improve-
ment on such application would have
been good. Ibid.

It is not sufficient that there be de-
scribed in the specification an invention
which is new, or might support a patent,
if that be not distinctly claimed as the
invention. Sanders v. Aston, 75.

It is not sufficient that a part of the
invention be very ingenious and new, if
that be not claimed. Bramah v. Hard-
castle, 76.

Semble, A claim to carrying out a
principle in any way is a claim to the
principle itself. Neilson v. Harford,355.
See SPECIFICATION.

COLONIES.

The colonies are part of the realm,
and semble, that the prior public user of
an invention therein would vitiate sub-
sequent letters patent granted for any
part of the realm. Brown v. Annan-
dale, 448-9.

Any combination leading to a new
and a cheaper, or a better article, is the
subject of letters patent. Ibid. 409.

An improved, or the particular, com-
bination, the subject of letters patent.
Carpenter v. Smith, 538.

See SUBJECT-MATTER.

rived from the specification. The House-
hill Company v. Neilson, 719.

The consideration for the patent is
the specification; if the invention be old,
that fails. Ibid.

See FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.
See FALSE SUGGESTION.

CONFIRMATION.

The crown on the recommendation of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council may grant new letters patent
for an invention which has been par-
tially used or known. (Stat. 5 & 6 W. 4,
c. 83, s. 2.

There being no evidence of user of
part of an invention contained in a pub-
lished book, letters patent for such in-
vention will be confirmed. Heurteloup's
patent, 553.

Letters patent will not be confirmed
adversely to a prior right. The exercise
of the jurisdiction is purely discretion-
ary. Costs of opposition will be given in
some cases. Westrup & Gibbins' patent,
554.

CONSIDERATION OF GRANT.

The restraining people in one trade
that they might employ themselves in
another, not a valid consideration. Case
of Monopolies, 5.

That grantee had undertaken to make
smalt, which was never before made in
England, as good as that imported, and

to sell the same at such reasonable rates
as it was sold at before.
Baker's pa-
tents, 9, 11, 13.

To supply the kingdom as well as be-
fore, and at reasonable rates. Ibid.

The expense of establishing a new
trade a ground for an extension by the
legislature. Lombe's patent, 38.

The difficulty of establishing a ma-
nufacture upon a new principle, a ground
of extension by the legislature. Cook-
worthy's patent, 39.

Failure of consideration a ground for
avoiding the grant. R. v. Mussary, 41.
If the invention be not new, the pub-
lic have not any consideration for the
patent, namely, the knowledge to be de-

The letters patent and specification
constitute one instrument, and are to be
interpreted according to the ordinary
sense of the terms. The Househill Com-

pany v. Neilson, 679.

The specification is to be taken in con-
nexion with the letters patent in de-
termining the validity of the title.
Neilson v. Harford, 312.

The patent is to be read in connexion
with the specification, and with a view
to support it. Russell v. Cowley, 470.

The description of the invention is to
be taken from the specification, and not
from the patent. Arkwright v. Night-
ingale, 60.

The construction of the patent and
the extent of the claim is for the court.
Hill v. Thompson, 237.

The utility of the invention and the
intelligibility of the specification are for
the jury; but the nature and extent of
the claim for the court. Ibid.

The meaning of the specification is
for the court, the words of art having
been interpreted by the jury. Neilson
v. Harford, 350.

The meaning of the specification is
matter of law, the judge having been
informed of the facts. Ibid. 351.

The construction of letters patent and
specification, except as to terms of art, is
for the court. Derosne v. Fairie, 156.

Some questions on the specification
are for the jury, and others for the court.
Neilson v. Harford, 367.

The construction of all written in-
struments is for the court, the meaning
of the words and surrounding circum-
stances having been ascertained by the
jury. Ibid. 370.

The terms of the specification must
be interpreted according to the state of
knowledge at the time. Crossley v.
Beverley, 107.

The terms "other substances" must
be understood with reference to sub-
stance, ejusdem generis, and in use at
the time, and which practical men would
employ. Ibid. 108.

The specification, on its fair construc-
tion, excluding the use of a maundril, it
will be presumed that the patentee does
not claim the use of that instrument.
Russell v. Cowley, 467.

A patentee to be presumed not to claim
things which he must have known to be

in use.

Haworth v. Hardcastle, 484.

The specification should be read so as
consistently with the fair import of lan-
guage to make the claim co-extensive
with the actual discovery. Ibid. 485.

If a specification describe certain ma-
chinery, and omit to claim any particular
part, or the combination of parts, the
patent must be taken to be for the whole.
Carpenter v. Smith, 532.

556; Downton's patent, 567; Macin-
tosh's patent, 739.

If the damage be under 408. a certi-
ficate under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2, ne-
cessary to give the plaintiff his costs.
Gillett v. Green, 271.

CROWN.

The prerogative of the crown as to
grants of letters patent absolutely re-
strained without reference to the place
in respect of which the grant is made.
Per Lord Lyndhurst, L. C., 454, n.

DAMAGES.

In action for infringement damages
generally only nominal. Lewis v. Mar-
ling, 493, n. z.

Acts done in reliance on former ver-
dict against a patent, evidence in reduc-
tion of damages. Arkwright v. Night-
ingale, 61.

To consist of profits and compensation
for the infraction of rights. The House-
hill Company v. Neilson, 697.

The plaintiff not entitled to damages
in a second action as of right. Minter
v. Mower, 138.

COSTS.

Costs on a caveat with the Chancellor
to withhold the great seal from a patent,
refused. Ex parte Fox, 431.

Costs on a caveat against sealing a
patent, given. Re Cutler's patent, 430.

The costs of an action permitted by
the Court of Chancery must follow the
usual rule as to costs of an action at
law; though in the case of an action or
issue directed the case may be different.
Russell v. Cowley, 471, n. b.

The defendant, if entitled to a non-
suit, ought not to pay the costs of a new
trial. Derosne v. Fairie, 160.

The statute (5 & 6 W. 4, c. 83, s. 6)
was not intended to render inoperative
Reg. G. H. T. 2, W. 4, s. 74, as to the
taxation of costs on the issues. Losh v.
Hague, 209.

The Privy Council will give costs in
some cases. Westrup & Gibbins' patent,

DATE.

Letters patent bear date the day of
sealing, but may be sealed as of the
day of the delivery of the warrant into
Chancery (16 H. 6, c. 1); 430, n. c.

The date of letters patent cannot be
altered. Ex parte Beck, 430.

A caveat having been disposed of, the
letters patent were sealed as of the date
of the delivery of the privy seal bill into
Chancery. Re Cutler's patent, 430.

The date not altered on letters patent
being resealed after an amendment. Re
Nickels' patent, 663.

DISCLAIMER.

A disclaimer or memorandum of alte-
ration of part of the title or specification
may be enrolled, with leave of the law
officers of the crown (stat. 5 & 6 W. 4,
c. 83, s. 1); 250, n. a.

Since the act of union, England and
Scotland must be taken to be one coun-
try in support of the validity of let-
ters patent. Roebuck v. Stirling, 45;
Brown v. Annandale, 433.

Evidence of user in England admis-
sible to invalidate a patent for Scotland.
Roebuck v. Stirling, 46.

An invention being known and pub-
licly practised in England before the
date of letters patent for Scotland, the
latter are void. Ibid. 48.

Previous public use in England will
invalidate a patent for Scotland. Brown
v. Annandale, 434.

England, Scotland, and the Colonies,
became one realm by the act of union.
Ibid. 448.

ENROLMENT.

The enrolment of a disclaimer or me-
morandum of alteration duly made can-
not be expunged from the rolls of the
court. Re Sharp's patent, 641.

The authority of the Master of the
Rolls is limited to correcting clerical
errors or errors of mistake. Ibid. 646.

An error in the enrolment of the privy
seal bill will be amended. Re Nickels'
patent, 655.

The enrolment is properly of the let-
ters patent, and not of the privy seal
bill. Ibid. 661.

An enrolment different from the let-
ters patent will not be permitted to
continue. Ibid. 661.

The letter having been written for
f in the engrossment of the specification,
and the enrolment made therefrom, the
Master of the Rolls ordered the latter to
be amended. Re Whitehouse's patent,
649, n. m.

The specification having recited the
letters to have been granted in "Octo-
ber" instead of "November," the Master
of the Rolls ordered the enrolment to be
amended. Re Rubery's patent, 649.

The copying clerk, in making the en-
rolment of the specification, transposed
certain numbers of reference to the
drawings; the Master of the Rolls or-
dered the enrolment to be amended. Re
Redmund's patent, 649.

Clerical errors in enrolments, or errors
made by inadvertence, always amended,
but under various authorities. Re Sharp's
patent, 647.

Records amended, 647, n. l.

ERRORS.

Amendable at Common Law.
See AMENDMENT AND ENROLMENT.

Amendable by Statute.

See AMENDMENT AND DISCLAIMER.

ESTOPPEL.

A patentee who has conveyed away
his interest is estopped in an action of
infringement by his assignee from de-
nying his title to convey. Oldham v.
Langmead, 291.

In an action of covenant on articles of
agreement, which recited that the plain-
tiffs were assignees of letters patent, the
defendant is not estopped from denying
the novelty of the invention. Hayne
v. Maltby, 291.

In an action of covenant on a license
deed, reciting that the plaintiff had in-
vented certain improvements, &c., the

Evidence of user in England admis-
sible to show want of novelty in pro-
ceedings on Scotch patent. Roebuck &
Garbett's case, 46.

The only evidence which the plaintiff
can give on the issue of novelty is, that
of persons who were in the way of hear-
ing of the invention, not having heard
of it. Cornish v. Keene, 509.

A plaintiff must give some evidence of
the sufficiency of the specification if de-
nied. Turner v. Winter, 81.

As, the evidence of persons of science
and workmen, that they have read the
specification and can understand it, and
have practised the invention according
to it.

Cornish v. Keene, 503.

And in the absence of contradiction
on the part of the defendant, such evi-
dence will be sufficient. Ibid.

The defendant must show that per-
sons have been misled by the specifica-
tion, or incurred expense in attempting
to follow it, and were unable to ascertain
what was meant. Ibid.

The plaintiff can only make a prima
facie case of novelty by calling persons
acquainted with the particular trade and
manufacture, to prove that they never
heard of any invention similar to the
plaintiff's. Galloway v. Bleaden, 526.

If a whole class of substances be men-
tioned as suitable, the plaintiff must
show that each and every of them will
succeed. Bickford v. Skewes, 218.

The letters patent are prima facie
evidence of the title of the party, and it
is for the defendant to impeach their
title. Minter v. Wells, 129.

In an action for the infringement of a
patent, professing to be an improvement

EXPERIMENT.

An experiment found not to answer,
and abandoned as useless, will not vitiate
a subsequent patent for an invention in
which the previous defects are remedied.
Jones v. Pearce, 124.

A mere experiment or course of ex-
periments, for the purpose of procuring a
result which is not brought to comple-
tion, but begins and ends in uncertain
experiments, will not prevent another
person, who is more successful, from ob-
Gal-
taining the benefit of his success.
loway v. Bleaden, 525 & 529.

The question is, whether what was
done rested in experiment, and unsuc-
full result, or whether it was a complete
cessful experiment, not conducted to its
discovery of that which forms the sub-
ject of the patent? Ibid. 526 & 529.

An invention abandoned must be pre-
sumed not to have been complete, but to
have rested in experiment. The House-
hill Company v. Neilson, 713.

That which is merely experiment can
never vitiate a patent; the experiments
and patent go on together. Ibid. 704,
705.

See ABANDONMENT.

EXTENSION OF TERM.
By Act of Parliament.

by the employment of the poor, conse-
The benefit conferred on the public
quent on the importation of a new ma-
nufacture, a ground for extension of
term by the legislature. The Lustring
patent (9 & 10 W. 3, c. 43, P.) 37. Ibid.
37, n.