INFRINGING A PATENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 54, 22 July 1912, Page 5

INFRINGING A PATENT.

DISPUTE OYER A MILKING MACHINE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. An interesting judgment concerning a patent was delivered yesterday by the I Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The j case was heard in Wellington in May > last. The parties were George Harrington MacEwan, exporter, of Dunedin, and J. B. MacEwan and Co., Ltd., of Wellington, plaintiffs, and Joseph Ilopkirk, engineer, of Hawera, defendant. Sir Joseph Findlay (with him Mr. D. M. 'Findlay) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. C. Peacock (with him ill 1 . D. R. Haggard) ippeared for Joseph Hopkirk. The facts of the case were that, on June 8. 11)08, George Harrington MacEwan patented an invention entitled "Improvements in agitating apparatus for milk and the like," an instrument employed in stirring the curd during the process of making cheese. lie consigned Ilia letters patent to MacEwan anil Co.. Ltd. It was alleged that Hopkirk had infringed the patent, and that when requested to desist lie had declined to do so. Plaintiffs, therefore, asked for an injunction to restrain Hopkirk from any further infringement. Thev also claimed £250-ilama'ges;'tir an enquiry .is to the damages sustained, or an account of the profits made bv Hopkirk in connection with the alleged infringement. The defence was a general denial. His Honor, after extensively reviewing the evidence and (lie law of patents, said that the defendant relied much on the fact that his machine allowed the curd.s and wliev to go through more freely. The mere fact that it was a slight improvement could not be held to excuse the infringement of the plaintiffs' patent. It was only, in fact, making the holes in the beaters a little larger. He thought this was not sufficient to establish for the defendant's machine a right to utilise all the other parts of the plaintiffs' machine, which was practically the machine itself. The defendant had, in IJis Honor's opinion, substantially taken the plaintiff's patent and made this slight alteration, which was an improvement when milk was not normal. The plaintill, therefore, was entitled to an injunction to -restrain defendant from manufacturing the plaintiff's machine. He would order an enquiry as to the damages if the parties could not agree upon any .amount, and as to the ordering of machines he understood from the defendant that he had no machines made, and that the enforcement, to deliver up was unnecessary. The plaintiff was entitled to costs, but they would be fixed after His Honor decided whether the enquiry is necessary or not. and he reserved to both parties the right to move.