TRUE AND VARIABLE ELECTRIC LAMP SYNDICATEV. BRYANT TRADING SYNDICATE

1908 Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases  
True and VariableElectric Lamp Syndicate v.BryantTradiniJSyndicate. IN, THE . HIGH COURT·OF·JUSTICE.-OHANOERY DIVISION.. Be/ore MR. JUSTICE SWINFEN EADY. February. 19th and 20th, 1908. TRUE AND ·VARIABLE ELEOTRIC LAMP SYNDIOA.TEV. BRYANT TRADING 5 SYNDWAT& Patent.-Actionfor infringement of two Patents.s-OnePateni held to have been anticipated, tlte other held tobe valid.-Novelty.-Mistakei1lJ>rawings.-Subordinate elaim:.~Utility.-I njunction.-Oosts apportioned. The owners oj two Patents for
more » ... wo Patents for uariableelectric lam1!s brought anaction for 10 infringement of both of them• . The Particulars. ·of Objections alleged both inventions to lack eubject-matter and to have beenanticipated by prior Specifications. .It became clear at the trial that one of the inventions had been anticipated by one of the Specifications cited, and the Plaintiff« mainly relied on the Patent for the other invention. Infringement was not contested. An objection 15 wasalteged against the secondPatent, viz., that, as the larnpwas stated in the Provisional Specification to be.specially applicable to lamps in -common use and it was clear that, as shown .in the Drawings, it could not be used in lamp holders in which the plungers were placed at a certain angle to the bayonet joints, which holders were commonly used at the date 0/ the. Patent, and that 20· the inve'ntion lacked utility. A further Objection was to a subordinate Ola1~m on the ground that it involved no invention as a Claim in gross. Held, that the first Patent was invalid for want oj novelty ; and, as to the second Patent, that the particular arrangement of the contact pieces shown in the Drawings . was a snere error which any workman oould correct, and that 25 the contrivance was novel, useful, and involved invention; and that the second Olaim was not a Claim in gross but merely subsidiary. Aninjuttct'ion was granted as regards the second Patent, but no inquiry as to damages, only one lamp having been sold. The costs were given to the Plaintiffs except so far as increased by the claim in respect to the first Patent, 30 which costs they were ordered to pay. British Dynamite Company v. Krebs (18 R.P.C. 190)followed.
doi:10.1093/rpc/25.14.461 fatcat:cv3ofus3xrctzd23vpdedfhz6m