Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1Jury Trial
Subject_2Patent
Subject_3New Invention. Headnote:

The pursuer in this case was Peter Kerr, of the firm of Clark & Co.. thread manufacturers, Seed-hills, Paisley, and the defenders were J. Clark & Co., thread manufacturers, Gordon's Loan, Paisley, and John Clark, thread manufacturer there, the sole partner of the said firm of J. Clark & Co. The pursuer set forth that on the 2d October 1857 he obtained letters-patent under the Great Seal, and sealed the 5th January 1858, for the invention of “Improvements in Preparing and Finishing Threads or Yarns.” By the said letters-patent there was granted to the pursuer, for fourteen years from the date of the same, the exclusive privilege of making, using, and vending the said invention within the United Kingdom. At the date of the patent the invention was new, and the pursuer was the first and true inventor thereof. The patent was still in force, and the pursuer continued to hold the rights which were thereby created and secured. The pursuer further set forth that, in contravention of the said letters-patent, the defenders, at their works in Paisley, during the period between 20th April 1867 and the date of raising the present action, had been wrongfully using the pursuer's invention, or a material part thereof, for the purpose of preparing, polishing, and finishing threads and yarns, and the pursuer had suffered loss and damage through the defenders' contravention of the patent. The defenders denied that the patent was valid. They alleged that the inventions described in the said letters-patent, so far as they differed from machines or mechanism in common use long before the date, and at the date, of the said letters-patent showed no ingenuity or invention, and were of no practical use. The alleged inventions described in the said letters-patent, specifications, and drawings, consisted of mere colourable and useless modifications or alterations upon mechanism perfectly well known and in public use at and prior to the date of the said letters-patent.

The following were the issues sent to the jury:—

“It being admitted that the pursuer obtained the letters-patent No. 9 of process, dated 2d October 1857, and sealed 5th January 1858, and duly filed, the specification of which No. 14 of process is a certified copy, and relative drawings of which No. 15 of process is a certified copy; and it being further admitted that, on 16th July 1864, the pursuer duly executed, and thereafter, on 18th August 1864, duly filed a disclaimer and memorandum of alteration upon the said specification, of which No. 16 of process is a certified copy:—

Whether, from the 20th April 1867 to the 14th November 1867, or during part of said period, and during the currency of the said letters-patent, the defenders did, at their works at Paisley, wrongfully and in contravention of the said letters-patent use the invention de-t scribed in the said letters-patent, specification, and relative drawings, as altered by the said disclaimer and memorandum of alteration, or a material part of the said invention, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”

Or,

1. “1. Whether the pursuer is not the first and true inventor of the invention described in the said letters-patent and relative specification and drawings and disclaimer?

2. 2. Whether the invention described in the said letters-patent and relative specification and drawings and disclaimer was publicly used in the United Kingdom prior to the date of the said letters-patent?”

Damages laid at £500.