536
REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN,
(Aug. 22, 1894.
Doioson Taylor and Comparut, Limited, v. The Drosophore Companst, Limited.
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.MANCHESTER DISTRICT.
Before VICE-CHANCELLOR ROBINSON.-June 25th, 1894.
DOWSON TAYLOR AND COMPANY, LIMITED, o, THE DROSOPHORE COMPAKY,
LIMITED.
5
Patent-s-Action to restrain threate-s-Threais by Defendants' Aqents.:«
Particulars.c-Nurnee of Agents of Defendants by iohom threats uiere alleged to
have been made.
In an action to restrain threats (~f legal proceedinqs for infrinqemeni (!f
a patent, the Plaintiffs alleged that they complained of threats 'made by the
Defendants' Aqent« on certain specified dates to certain persons named. On an
application by the Defendants for particulars,
Held, that the Plaintiff« mu»i give the names o.f the . .4 {jents of the Defendants
by iohom they alleqed the threats to have been made.
DOluson, Taylor and
LiJnited, manufactured and sold apparatus for
moistening' or saturating air in mills, weaving sheds, factories and other
buildings under certain patents.
On the Hth of March, 1894, they issued a writ against The Drosophore Companu,
Limited, claiming an injunction to restrain the Defendants, their servants and
agents, from making or continuing threats of legal proceedings or Iiabil ity,
in respect of alleged inf'ringement by the Plaintiffs of certain Letters Patent or
alleged Letters Patent for a humid if'ying machi ne of earlier date than the
Plaintiffs. In paragraph 4 of the Statement of Clairn, they gave three instances
of the threats complained of (1) ana (2) being verbal statements made in the
year 1894 on or about February 10th and li3th respectively by the Defendants
or their agents to certain persons named.
The Defendants took out a summons asking (amongst other things) for
particulars of the person or persons by whom, and the person or persons to
whom the alleged threats referred to in paragraph 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Statement of 'Claim were made, 'I'his summons was adjourned into Court.
Astburt, (instructed by Oooper and 8'ons) appeared for the Defendants.
Jlaberly (instructed by Withi nqton, Petty and Bou~tf(Jloer) appeared for the
Plaintiffs.
It was contended on behalf of the Defendants that these particulars should
be given on the analogy of actions for slander, and that, in the absence of knowledge on their part as to the persons by whom the threats were alleged to
have been made, they could not ascertain whether or no there was any case
against them, and therefore they would be unable to decide whether or not
they ought to defend the action, and if they decided to aefend, they could not
properly prepare for trial.
For the Plaintiffs it was contended that it was sufficient to give the names of
the persons to whom the threats were made, that the agents authorised to call
on the persons III ust be known to the Defendants, and that the Plaintiffs could
not be compelled to give the names of their witnesses. Eade v. .Jacobs, L.R. :1,
Exch. D. 365, was cited.
ROBINSON, V.C.-}1~nough -is given as to the persons to whom the threats were
made, but I think the Plaintiffs ought to give the names of the agents. I think
there is a great deal in what Mr. Astbury says, that it is somewhat similar to
the cases of slander; and in the cases of slander the Courts have decided that
c«,
1.(1
15
20
2;'
30
:35
40
45
Vol. XI., No. 26.]
AND TRADE MARK CASES.
537
Doioson. Taylor and Comparu), Limited, v. The Drosophore Oompany, Limited.
the name of the person to whom the slander has been spoken is necessary.
The Plaintiffs necessarily know the person by whom it i~ made.
...l frtberley : We give the information as to the person to whom the threats were
made.
5 TheVICE-CHANCELLOR.-Yes, I think that is sufficient; but I think they
are entitled to the names of the agents.
Before the JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Present LORD WATSON, LORD HOBHOUSE, LORD MACNAGHTEN, LORD
MORRIS, and Sir RICHARD COUOH.-July 25th, 1894.
10
IN THE"l\IATTER OF LYON'S PATENT.
Patent for steam dis'ilnjector.-1Jr'olongtttion.-Conditions as to licenses.:-:
Costs.
L. J]] esented a petition for prolonqation of a patent granted to him 'in 1880
for irnprooements in the construction and arranqement of «pparatus for
15 p'U1'"1fying, disinf'ectinq, and drying. The I)al£d'ity of the patent had been
upheld by the Hnuse uf Lords in an action.
The Petition ioas opposed by TV.,
one of the Defendants in the action, and also by the Corporations of N. and
and the H. Local Board, icho did not dispute the 'validity of the patent or
question the accounts or assert the insufficiency of the remuneration, but
20 contended that it should be a term 0./' prolongation that the Petitioner should
grant a licence to anyone desiring it upon. the same terms as to royalty as
those granted to his exclusiue Licensees, which the Petitioner undertook to do
before the hearinq of this Petition.
W. contended that the inoention uias not one of such exceptional merit under
25 the circurnstances as to justzfy prolonqation, The Crown consented to a
prolongation for a short period.
The Judicial Committee decided to recommend the qran: of a new patent for
five years upon the condition that the Petitioner should qrnn! licenses on the same
terms to all persons, the royalties to be limited to 10 per cent. upon the
30 selling price of each machine , lnit that the case was not one for costs.
On the 3rd of August 1880, a patent, No. 3172 of 1880, was granted to
Washinqton Lyon, for the invention of "ImprovementH in the construction
"and arrangement of an apparatus for purifying, disinfecting, drying and
" heating." The Specification will be found set out at p.121 of 10 R.P.C.
35 In 1891 the Patentee commenced an action for infringement of this patent
against Goddard, .1l1assey, and Warner. The Defendants denied infringement,
-and alleged that the patent was invalid on the ground of previous publication
and user (see 10 R.P.C" 122), including the use of a machine by the Aberdeen
Laundry, at Aberdeen, in 1879. Judgment in the action was given in favour
40 of the Patentee, which judgment was affirmed, first by the Court of Appeal,
and finally by the House of Lords. See ante p. 354.
Before the appeal to the House of Lords had been disposed of, the Patentee
presented a petition for the prolongation of the term of the patent, by which
petit.ionhe stated, among other things (paragraph la), that on the 8th of March
45 1881, he had entered into an agreement with Messrs . Manloce; Alliott, F'ryer
and Co., of .Nottingham, Mechanical Engineers, whereby he granted to the
w.