MILKING MACHINE PATENT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 368, 20 April 1910, Page 8

MILKING MACHINE PATENT

GILLIES v. HARNETT COMPANY. PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. Judgment Was delivered at Melbourne on lltii March by Mr. Justice Hood in the action Gillies v. the Hartnctt Patent Milking-machine Company. The plaintiff. Alexander Gillie?, a dairyman, of Heidelberg, is the inventor of a patented addition to an existing patent milking machine. It consists of a small airhole at the top df til;' tout-turn', wliieh assist s' the free How of the milk. The defendant company used a small groove in the teat cup of their machine, which, as it was for the purpose of letting in air, Mr. Gillies claimed was an infringement of litis patem. The hearing took place several days before the long vacation, and was resumed again last month. Mr. Mitchell, K.C., Mr. Starke, and Mr. Mann (instructed by Mr. F. B. Waters) appeared for Mr. Gillies; and Mr. Irvine, K.(.'., and Mr. Scliutt (instructed by Messrs Derham 'and Derham) for the flartnett Company. Mr. Justice Hood, in the course of his judgment, said that the first question was whether the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's patent. The Court had to be satisfied that what the defendant had done amounted to a taking of the invention claimed by the plaintiff in his patent. If the plaintiff's invention included the discovery or suggestion of a new principle as w'ell as the means of carrying it into effect, the defendant would not take that principle, even though he used some different machinery for the application of it. Gillies' patent was dated May 0, 1903. The ap- < paratus which he desired to improve was what was called the double-chamber sys- | torn. The difficulty in working it was to get the milk clear in the passage, as it was apt to get about the point 01 the cow's teats and thus pause pain. In his specification the plaintiff said that, in order to facilitate the transit of the milk to the receiver he found it advantageous to introduce a small quantity of air into the milk passage, : and for that purpose hu made a small air inlet in the milk passage, preferably at the top of the teat cap. The defendant's invention had put no air-hole either in the top of the cap or in the milk passage, but made a rubber cap, I fitting closely over the top of the milk cup, and having an aperture for the reception of the teat. In the sides was a groove, and the main question turned upon the effect of that groove. The evirence was conflicting as to whether it admitted air or not, but the view of the plaintiff was borne out by the experiments in court, that it did admit air In some uncertain fashion. The defendant's cap and groove were in his (the Judge's) opinion merely a substitute for the plaintiff's air inlet. The defendant had taken the "pith and marrow" of the plaintiff's invention, and had used another, though similar, mode of carrying it into effect. The plaintiff having established an infringement, Mr. Justice Hood continued., it became necessary to consider whether the patent was invalid on any of the three grounds on which it was attacked. The first was anticipation. The alleged anticipation, he thought, disclosed neither the result attained by the patent nor the mode of producing it. Therefore, that objection failed. The second was the want of subject matter. It would 'be manifestly unfair to refuse a patent merely because, when an inventor's idea was disclosed "any fool could carry it out. No smallnes's or simplicity would prevent a patent being good, and a slight improvement might be the subject of a patent, provided there were ingenuity, novelty, and utility in the improvement. Therefore, he thought the second ground failed. The third ground also, wa.nt of proper description, failed, as the patentee 'had given a sufficient direction to eanble a competent workman to make an efficient machine.

"The plaintiff having established a violation of his rights/' his Honor eoneluded, "is entitled to judgment, with nominal damages. He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing his patent. At first I -was impressed by the argument that the injunction might do the defendant injury in its 'business out of proportion to any benefit derived by the plaintiff. Such-a consideration is now out of place. The defendant's conduct was deliberate, and the directors are, in my opinion, still considering modes l of availing themselves of the plaintiff's invention. Their letter before the action and their conduct of this case show that their main object was to destroy defendant's patent, with * view of substituting something of their own, and they continued the sales of the articles in dispute even after, •the action. I therefore draw the inference that there may be a continuance of the wrongful act so as to Justify the granting of an injunction. There* will be judgment for the plaintitff for Is \ damages, with costs, and an injunction as asked." It is understood that the defendants ■will appeal to the High Court.—Argus.