ARTIFICIAL SILK

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 72, 27 March 1933, Page 7

ARTIFICIAL SILK

A PATENTS DISPUTE

COSTLY LITIGATION

PLAINTIFFS LOSE CASE

(From "The Posts. Representative.) LONDON, February 10.

Judgment has been given in one of the most protracted and iavolved technical cases which have been before the Courts for some time.

In this case British Celanese, Limited, claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants, Courtaulds, Limited, of 16 St. Martins-le-Grand, E.C., from infringing certain letters patent belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed damages and other relief.

The plaintiffs alleged that on various dates between. January, 1926, and July, 1931, the defendants made and soid' cellulose acetate yarns and fabrics, composed of or containing such yarns which had been manufactured, and had used machines constructed, in accordance with the inventions disclosed in the complete specifications of the letters patent in question. .'

The defendants denied having infringed the letters patent and said that each of the letters patent was and always had been invalid. The defendants eouiiterclaimed for tho revocation of the letters patent. ' For many years before 1920, it was stated during the hearing, artificial silk had been produced in very large quantities in Great Britain, on the Continent, and in America. The broad distinction to bo drawn between the processes which had been in use was that one process was wet an,d the other was dry. One variety of the wet process was the viscose process, and of that process Courtaulds, Limited, were the pioneers. The plaintiffs, oa the other hand, were the pioneers in the production of acetate silk, which was known by the name of "Celanese." The plaintiffs alleged thatf acetate silk had never been produced commercially before 1920, the date of the plaintiffs' first patent. Since- then its production had grown until today it was a very important industry. la 1926, or a little later, it was said, Messrs. Courtaulds were minded to begin experimenting in the production of acetate silk, and for the last few years the plaintiffs had found them to be competitors.

The case had been before the Judge for thirty-five days in the Law Courts, and it had cost more than £1000 a day. It has had repercussions in the financial and artificial silk world, and has been one of the most protracted and technical actions for many years. Five leading King's Counsel and four juniors had taken part in the ease. The leaders had - their briefs' marked at several hundred pounds, with refreshers of many guineas a day while the case was before the Court. Professors and silk experts gave evidence, and the Whole history of the silk industry as known -was fully gone into. Arguments about inventions of half a' century ago and patent papers all came'before the Judge. . MONOPOLY CLAIMED. Mr. Justice Clauson first explained the relation of the parties. Both were concerned, he said, in the manufacture of artificial silk, and both employed processes which were very similar. British Celanese, Limited, claimed that they wore entitled to a monopoly for various features in their patents, and Courtaulds, Limited, claimed that the plaintiffs^ were not entitled to that monopoly because there was no novelty in their patents. Courtaulds, "Limited, said his Lordship, -were the pioneers of the viscose silk industry in this country, and by 1912 it had become a serious rival to nitro cellulose silk. In the cellulose acetate process the artificial- silk filaments were led downwards, and wound outside the casing m which the evaporate process took place. The first question was whether the monopoly claimed by the plaintiffs disclosed any inventive step. Assuming there was subject matter, the next question was whether there had been anticipation of the plaintiffs' hrst patent. They had also adopted a process of cap-spinning by which the filaments were wound with a twist and the second patent related to that method of spinning. The cap-spinning of textiles -was admittedly an old process. The third patent to which the action related was the apparatus for securing uniformity ia the product in an evaporative process.' REVOCATION ORDER. The crux of the whole case, so far' as the first patent was concerned, said Mr. Justice Clauson, was: Has the patentee given to the world something which had an inventive step and disclosed subject matter? The plaintiffs said the pith and marrow of the whole matter was the combination of the four elements, and they said that a higher spinning speed had been obtained from the co-operation of those features. In his judgment the plaintiffs' first patent disclosed no subject matter and was, therefore, invalid. As to the second patent for a capspinning device, Mr. Justice Clausen held that the user of that form of spinning, with simultaneous twisting and winding of artificial silk filaments, was analogous to the use of such a device for other textiles. The second patent was bad for want of subject matter. As to the third patent for the production of artificial silk by an evaporative process plaintiffs had failed to establish infringement, and he proposed to confine himself to tho question of its validity. It was quite impossible- to-hold tho plaintiffs' claim to an invention on the third patent to be valid. They claimed to be able to obtain uniformity of cross section. Tha^ was merely telling the world that if they got all the conditions uniform they would get a uniform result. The result was that the action would be dismissed. On the counter-claim there would be an order for the revocation of ,the three patents numbered.

If plaintiffs desired it they might have a direction inserted in tho judgment that the revocation order .was not to be presented to the Patent Office' until three weeks from that day if notice of appeal was given within that period.

The plaintiffs raftst pay tho costs of the action, which would include the costs of the issues of infringement.