LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 878, 26 July 1910, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL

PATENT DESICN IN SKYLIGHTS,

WAS IT INFRINGED?

Numerous constructions of galvanised iron, brass and glass wcro brought into, tho Court-room yesterday to illustrate counsel's argument in a patent case affecting skylights. Nevertheless, it was stated by counsel that the facts were simple, and that it required littlo or no expert knowledge, to grasp them.

The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justico Cooper and Mr. .Tustico Chapman were on the bench.

The appellants were John. William Wado, tinsmith ami plumber, of Gisborne, and Francis Fowler, Goorgo Squiro Fowler, and Frederick Stokes, carrying on business as F. and W. Fowler, of Auckland, manufacturing plumbers. 'Tiiey were represented by Mr. C. P. Skcrrott, K.C., and. Mr. E. 0. Blomfield (of Auckland).

The respondents (who were, represented by Dr. Bamford, of Auckland) wero Hartley and Hartley,. Ltd., manufacturing plumbers, Auckland, and Frederick Charles Griffiths, plumber, New Plymouth.

Wade is tho patentee of "Wado'6 Iraproved Iron Skylight Frame," and had assigned tho Auckland rights of manufacture and salo to F. and W. Fowler. In the original action in tho Supremo Court in Auckland, Wado and tho Fowlers, as plaintiffs, claimed that tho defendant company had' made; used, /and sold a largo number of. skylight frames, all mado according' to, or in a mutter colourably different from, Wado's patented invention. Plaintiffs therefore asked.for an injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringement; tho payment to plaintiffs tho profits made on Midi .sales by t\& fenclants, or a royalty of 7d. per square foot; and tho .delivery to plaintiffs of all such skylight frames in possession of defendants, or a royalty of 7d. per square foot thereon.. Against theso claims, the defendants denied that F. and W. I'Wwlw had tli* owiusive right, to sell the invention in tho Auckland I district. They stated that the frames made by them were essentially different in design and form from those covered by tho plaintiff's patent, and were nmdo under a' patent granted to Griffiths. At the suggestion of Mr. Justice Edwards, tho questions in difference were referred to arbitrators, and they decided that Griffiths's method did not infringe Wado's patent. His Honour reviewed their report,, inspected models of thoskylights; and decided theie were essential differences between them, and he therefore gave judgment for -tho defendants. . ■ ' ' ■ The plaintiffs asked the Appeal Court to reverse this judgment. Mr. Skerrett, in. his argument, said that the differerico between Wado's skylight and Griffiths's was that in tho latter the coaming or wall of the framo (i.e., the part fixed on tho roof) was inclined inwards on each side, so as, to make a space between it and tho coaming of tho cap (i.e., tho hinged part of the skylight, containing the glass), whereas in Wade's tho coaming of tho framo was at right angles to tho roof. The validity of Wade's patent was not _in question, and Griffiths's specifica'tions described his skylight merely as an improvement 'on Wade's, and comprised a disclaimer of anything contained in Wado's specifications. In granting Griffiths's patent, the Chief Justice had-said that he.did so with some doubt, but (counsel suggested) that ho did rightly, because, had ho refused it, there could have been no appeal. Tho main questions were: (1) How much was covered by Wade's patent? (2) Was not Griffiths's production a mere colourable imitation of Wade's? The latter was the first selfcontained, watertight, iron skylight invented or used in Now Zealand. It had had many imitators, of which Griffiths was one. Counsel also said ho did not set up the disclaimer in Griffiths's specifications as an estoppal, but it was a most solemn and emphatic declaration that Griffiths's production was a rnero improvement on Wade's.

Dr. Bamford, in tho cnnrso of his argument, said that ,tho disclaimer in Grilfitlis's specifications did not represent his real opinion, as it was inserted by the Court against his will. It should not affect 'Hardley and Hardley, who were the real.respondents, tho practical issue being .whether the'article manufactured by. them infringed' AVade's patent. Tho efficient secret of Grifliths's patent was keeping tho glass clear above the coaming and providing between tho cap and the coaming a space into which water could drop. It thus differed essentially from Wade's, the efficient secret of which was that thero was a beading, which formed, with the top of the coaming, a sort of pipe or channel to take off the water. Counsel had not concluded when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to,day-