APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 240, 28 June 1918, Page 7

APPEAL COURT

CiiriISTCIiURCH CASE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT The Appeal Court was engaged yesterday in hearing mi appeal case from Ciirislchtirch bearing on Hie alleged infringement of u patent covering a highpressure boiler m connection with an ordinary cooking range. On tho lieneh were His Honour 'the Chief Justice (Sir J.'obort Stout), His .Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, ami His Jlonour Mr. Justice llerdnian.

The parties to I lie dispute were Messrs. Scott Bros, and George Scott, appellants, and Messrs. 11. Hepburn and Son, respondents. Mr. C. I>. Skerrel.i, K.C., with him Mr. A. P. Wright, of Chrislchurch, appeared ior ■the appellants and Mr. ,S. It. liaymonil, K.C., with him Mr. i\. V. von llaast, for the- respondents. The appeal was from a decision of Mr. Justice Win.

The statement of claim as heard in the Supremo Court in Chrislchureh set out that the plaintiff, George Scott, was the registered proprietor of letters pallent for New Zealand for an invention, tho title of which was "an improved highpri'ssuii! boiler for a cooking range," also that (he plaintiff, (loorgo Scott, was, and always had been, a trustee of tho benefit, of the said letters patent for the plaintiffs, Scott Bros., .Ltd. It was alleged that the defendants had .it various times manufactured and sold high pressure boilers constructed in accordance with the invention disclosed in the spociiicaliou of the plaintiff's letters patent, ft was also claimed that the delcndains had threatened to infringe the letters patent, and claimed the right lo make the boilers, as I hey had been doing, the plaintiffs therefore brought action sookmg ail injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the letters patent, claiming- .£2(10 damages, or an inquiry as to the damage sustained by tho plaintiffs by reason ot the infringement, and 'that liio defendants be, ordered to deliver to The plaintiffs, to be destroyed, all the high-pressure boilers, made by them m infringement of tho'letters patent. In the statement of defence it was denied That the plaintiffs were the. legal owners of the letters patent relerred to, or thai: there had been any infringement of them. It was also contended that (he letters patent were invalid for severe reasons, including the 'following:-(! That the alleged invention was not novel at the dale of the grant of the said Idlers patent; (2) the publication at the Patent. Office of specifications of an invention substantially the same as the plaintiffs' alleged invention belore tho dale of the grunt of the lotcrs;.uud (3) the prior use' bv the plaintiffs themselves of the alleged 'invention claimed by the Idlers patent. After n lengthy hearing Ills Honour Mr. Justice. Sim held that ihe plaintiff's' letters patent were invalid, and that the defendants were entitled to judgment. J e entered judgment accordingly, with costs on the middle scale as on a claim for £100 with disbursements and witnesses expenses. Against this decision tho appeal was made. Tho Court was littered w.ilh stoves and flues and parts, which were used lo illustrate the superiority and improvements in the plaintiffs' high-pressure boiler; , , The hearing of argument had not concluded when (he Court rose.