PATENT RIGHTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8360, 21 February 1913, Page 2

PATENT RIGHTS

ON MILKING MACHINE DEVICE. INVESTOR CLAIMS DAM GES. Alleged negligence in the application for letters patent on a milking machine appliance was the basis of an action for damage® which oam© Defer© ins Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a special jury in the SnpremeOoUit yesterday; The parties were Frederick John Northoott, manufacturing agent, ot Auckland, plaintiff, and Henry Hughes, Ltd., patent agents, defendants. . Mr A W. Blair appeared for plaintiff and Mr T. Young for defendants. It was set out in the statement of itlHm that on May. Ist, .1911, defendants, acting as flgente for plaintiff, applied in Wellington for letters patent for milk-receiving cans for milking machines. A complete specification W2td aoGopted on Mfly Jlsty and notifioation 'of the the “ New. Zealand Gazette ” of June Ist. The plaintiff instructed the defendants in May to obtain letters patent in the Commonwealth of Australia,, and on Juno 29th defendants, by, their agents, G. Waters and. Son, lodged, an application (No. 164,7) in the Commonwealth Patent Office at Melbourne. tJpoii receipt of the advice of the filing of the application the plaintiff, belieting that a proper and valid application (upon which letters patent ceuld be issued) had been made, went to Melbourne to, negotiate for the sale of his patent rights. On September 25th, 1911, he entered into a preliminnary agreement with one John Henry Davies for the sale of the Commonwealth - fights. ! Davies undertook to pay a royalty of £1 for each article told, with a minimum payment of £2OO for the first year and £3OO for each' subsequent year for four years. At the end of five years Davies win to have the right of renewal in the . same terms, with a minimum payment of £3OO per year for the term of the patent (fourteen years). It was discovered, on September 25th, 1911 (before a formal agreement was signed), that the letters patent granted in the commonwealth were invalid by reason of,the publication of the nature of the patent in the “ New Zealand Gazette.” Copies - of this “ Gazette ” had. been received in Australia more than twenty-one days_ prior to the filing of the application there. It would ho necessary to file a fresh application, and there would he delay. Davies' had repudiated his agreement, and plaintiff oould hot recover damages from' him. Plaintiff alleged- that he had lost the sale of the rights in Australia as a result of defendants’ negligence in dealing .With the applications. He therefore claimed damages amounting to £550.. The defence generally was a denial of the allegations that -defendants were in any way responsible for the noniSSUe of .valid patent rights. . Evidence taken in Melbourne on behalf of the plaintiff was read to the jury, together with answers to interrogatories, . Leave was reserved to Mr Young to move for nonsuit at at later stage. The case had not concluded when the court adjourned for the day.