APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 270, 3 August 1918, Page 2

APPEAL COURT

RESERVED JUDGMENT

ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OP A PATENT 'Ilio Appeal Court (Second Division) Sll t yesterday, iim! delivered judgment in the case of Scott Bros., Ltd., v. 1[ H<. n . burn and Son. l On the ilench were His. Honour the Cluet ..Justice (Sir Uotwt Stout) and Hie Honour Mr. .Tustico, Chapman Ui 3 Honour Mr. Justice Hcrdnian was not present, and his judgment was read by .tho Chief .Justice. This was an appeal from a decision w Mv. Justin Sun. The statement of claim, as heard in the Supreme ''ourt Cliri3tchurc.li, sot out that tho piam' till., George Scott, was the registered proprietor of letters patent ior New Zealand for an invcnl ion the litlo of which was " an improved high-pressure boiler tor a cooki'ig range," also that the plaintifl," George Scott, was and always Jincl been a trustee of the benefit of the said letters patent for the plaintiff, Scott btna., Ltd. lc was alleged that the delemlants had at various times manufac hired and sold high-pressure boilers constructed in accordance with the invention disclosed in the specification of the plaintiffs' letters patent. It was also claimed that defendants had threatened to. infringe tho letters patent, and claimed the right to make t| m boilers, as they uad. been .doing. Tim plaintiffs, therefore, brought action seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the lattcrs patent, claiming •-C2OO 'images, or an inquiry as to the damage sustained by the plaintiffs oy rea son of the infringement,' and that (he defendants be ordered to deliver to tho , pUuntiUs, to be destroyed, all the highpressure boilers 'made by them in int'riiiijemcnt of the letters patent. In the statement of defence- it was denied-thai.the plaintiffs were the legal owners of the letters patent referred to or that there had been any infringement of them; It was also contended that tho letters patent were invalid for several reasons, including tho following:—That the "alleged invention was not novel at the date of the grunt of tho said, letters patent; (2) tho publication at tho Patf.nl Oflico of specifications of an invention substantially tho same as the plaintiffs' alleged inveution before tho dato of tho grant of tho letters; and (3) tho prior uso by the plaintiffs -themselves of -.he alleged invention claimed • by the letters patent. His Honour Mr. Justice Sim held that tho plaintiffs' letters patent were ihvalid, and that the (Infundants wore en•titleil to judgment. ' Ho entered judginont accordingly, with costs or. the middle scale us on a claim for i!3flo, with disbursements and witnesses' expenses. 'Ihe Co'irt \ ns unanimously of opmion that the appeal should bo allowed, on tho ground that the patent was valid and that the respondents had infringed the patent. The case ■is to bo remitted to' the Supreme Court to assess the damages nnd make such order us may be necessary to give ell'oct to the judgment, and also that fcho patent be declared valid. Appellant was allowed costs on the highest scale iis from u distance. Leave to appeal was granted. At the hearing Mr. C. l>. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. A. F. Wright, of Christclinrch, appeared for the 'aji.n-" lanls, and Mr. S. G. liuymond, ICC, with him Mr. ]I. F. von liaust for tiie respondents.