MILLER AND CO.V. THE CLYDE BRIDGE STEEL COMPANY, LIMITED
Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases
Patent.-Alleged injringement.-Vall~dity of patent.-Anticipation alleged and denied.-Priority.-Want of ut£lity.-lllant of subject-matter.:-: 10 Repugna.ncy between proinsional and final epecification.s-Uombination.:-: Denial of infrinqement.s--Cross patent-s-Substantial identity.-Oolourable variations by means of mechanical equivalents.-Vertical hydraulic cylindel CJ embraces vertical oscillating hydraulic cyll~nder.-Questiot~of fact for jury. The assignee of a patent (1885, No. 4236) for
... o. 4236) for improuements in machinery 15 for rolling metals, brought an action of suspension. and interdict against an alleged infringer on the ground that the material part of a patented combination had been used by him., The material part consisted of a titter forming a conuenient means for turning and mouinq transversely across the feed rollers bars or slabs of metal when being conducted along the feed rollers touiards the 20 grooves of the rolls. The Specification further described improoed arranoemente of hydraulic apparatusfor acting on ingots or blooms Of' masses of metal after each lJasBage between, the rolls" so as to turn or assist in mouinq them into the " positionsfor passing through the successive grooves of the rolls," according to tVJO alternative modifications, in both of which vertical hydraulic cylinders 25 with lifter heads attached to their rams, icere distinctive features for actuating by a direct upioard thrust the tilting process by ichicn the metals were turned into their positions for passing through the rolls. The principal ground of action uias that the machinery used by the Respondents (Defendants) embracing an oscillating vertical hydraulic cylinder as a mechanical equivalent for the 30 stationary vertical hydraulic cylinder in Pursuers' patent, was substantially the same. The Defenders maintained there were substantial differences, and · that these' variations were a patentable improvement on the Complainers' patent. Held, by the Lord Ordinar~r,followingClark v. Adie, L.R. 2, AJJp. Oases 315, that the adoption of the substantial part of a combination oonstituted in-35 fringement, and that there had been such infringement in this case. The · Defenders reclaimed.