Derosne v Fairie and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 205
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Tyr. 393; 1 Gale, 109.
deeujsne -o. faiuik; and otheks.() Exeh. of Pleas. 1835.-In the recital of a patent it was stated, that the patentee was the first and true inventor of certain improvements in extracting sugar and syrups from cane-juice and other substances containing sugar, and in refining sugar and syrups. The specification alleged, that the invention consisted in a means of discolouring syrups of every description by means of charcoal, produced by the distillation of bituminous schistus alono, or mixed with animal charcoal, or even of animal charcoal alone, [t then alleged that the discolouration was to be effected by means of a filter made of charcoal, and that there was nothing particular in the carbonization of the bituminous schistus, only that it was "convenient, before the carbonization, to separate the sulphurets of iron which are mixed with it." To an action for infringing this patent, the defendant pleaded, that the patentee did not, by any instrument, particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in what manner the same was to be and might be performed: -Hold, first, that the specification sufficiently described the invention stated in the title of the patent, it being shewn that it was applicable with advantage to the extracting of syrup from cane juice, before it is baked to such a consistency as to granulate and become sugar. Secondly, it was proved, that sulphuretof iron was combined with the bituminous schistua found iti this country; and there was no evidence to shew that the presence of iron in the charcoal produced by the schistus was not injurious to the matter going through the process of discolouration : -Held, that it was incumbent on the patentee to prove that the presence of iron in the bituminous schistus used in the process of filtering would not be injurious ; or else, that the method of extracting the iron from it was mo simple and well known, that a person ordinarily acquainted with the subject could remove it with case ; or that the bituminous schistus, as known in England, could be used in the process with advantage. [S. C. 5 Tyr. 393; 1 Gale, 109.] Case for the infringing of a patent. The declaration stated, that, before and at (a) This case was argued and determined in Easter Term. 206 DEROSNE V. FATRTE 2 C. M. & R. 477. the time of the making of the letters patent, and of tho committing of the grievances by the said defendants as hereinafter mentioned, the said plaintiff was, within the true intent and meaning of a certain act of Parliament, made and passed in the reign of King- .fames I, being, &c., (reciting the statute of 'J L Jac. I, o. ,'i), the first and true inventor, of certain ini-[477j-provoments in extracting sugar or syrups from cane-juice and other substances containing sugar, and in refining sugar and syrups ; which said improvements others, at the time of the making of the said letters patent, did not use; and thereupon our lord the now King, on the '29th September, 18,'iO, by his letters patent, bearing dtite, &c., (profert in curium), after reciting, amongst other things, that the said plaintiff had, by his petition, humbly represented that the said plaintiff', in consequence of a communication made to him by a certain foreigner residing abroad, was in possession of an invention for certain improvements in extracting sugar or syrups from cane juice and other substances, containing sugar and syrups ; that the same was new in England, Wales, and the town of Herwick upon-Tweed, and in the British colonies, and had never been practised therein by any other person or persons whomsoever, to his the said plaintiffs knowledge and belief; our said lord the King, of his especial grace, &c., did give and grant to the plaintiff, his executors, administrators and assigns, his especial licence, &c., that he, the said plaintiff, his executors, &o., and no others, should and might make, use, exercise, and vend his said invention, within England, &c. The declaration then set forth the patent, which was subject to a proviso " that if the said plaintiff should not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of the said invention, and in what manner the same was to be performed, by an instrument in writing under his hand and seal, and cause the same to be enrolled, &c., that the said letters patent, and all liberties, &c., should cease, determine, and become void." It then stated the enrolment thereof of record in Chancery ; and assigned as a breach, that the defendant had made use of the invention without the licence of the plaintiff. Pleas-First, not guilty. Secondly, that the plaintiff was not, at the time of the making of the said letters patent, the true and first inventor of the said improvements in [478] extracting sugar or syrups from cane-juice and other substances containing sugar, and in refining sugar and syrups, in manner and form as alleged in the declaration. Thirdly, that the plaintiff did not, by any instrument in writing, particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his said invention, and in what manner the same was to be, and might be performed, in manner and form, &(ò . Fourthly, that the plaintiff did not cause any instrument in writing, particularly describing and ascertaining the nature of the said invention, and in what manner the same was to bo performed, to be enrolled in his Majesty's High Court of Chancery, in manner and form, &c. The plaintiff took issue on all the pleas. The grant by letters patent, which was recited in the first part or title of the specification, was for the use by the plaintiff of an invention of certain improvements to be used in the course of extracting sugar or syrup from cane juice and other substances containing sugar, and in refining sugar and ayrups, partly communicated to the plaintiff by a certain foreigner residing abroad. The specification described the manner in which the invention was to be used as follows:- "The invention consists in a means of discolouring syrups of every description, by means; of charcoal produced by the distillation of bituminous sohistus alone, or mixed with animal charcoal, and even of animal charcoal alone. Whatever sort of charcoal it may be, it must be disposed on beds very thick, on a filter of any suitable form. The filter of itself has nothing particular, and does not form the object of tho patent, because it is already known and used for other purposes; but till now it has not been employed for discolouring syrups. To obtain this discolouration, I put the charcoal in a case, in which I place, at the distance of about an inch from the bottom, a metallic diaphragm, pierced with a great number of holes. T then place upon this diaphragm a clear or coarse linen or [479] woollen cloth, which exactly covers it. I then place upon this cloth a bed of charcoal of bituminous schistus alone, or mixed with animal charcoal, or animal charcoal alone; whatever it may be, this charcoal ought to be in a state of division, in order that it may be well penetrated with the syrup which is intended to be filtered. Charcoal in fine powder would not be penetrated by the syrup. It has been found that the charcoal reduced to the size of fine gunpowder is very fit for this operation ; if the grain is too large, the filtration 2 C. M. & R. 0. DEROSNB 1). FAIRIE 207 would he operated too rapidly. I lightly press the charcoal, and then again place new beds of the same charcoal, which should likewise be pressed till it has come up to the height of fifteen or sixteen inches. It may be made higher if found necessary, or it may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harwood and Another, Executors of C H Wild, against The Great Northern Railway Company
...of condensing had been long known and practised in the common still. [He also cited Cook v. Pearce (8 Q. B. 1044), Derosne v. Fairie (2 C. M. & R. 476 ; 1 Webst. Pat. Ca. 154), and Newton v. Faucher (6 Exch. 859).] [204] Secondly, there was no misdirection. There was no invention in the use......
-
Horton v Mabon
...with the maundril in that case; and the result is equally the production of a better and a cheaper article. Derosiie v. f'airie, 2 C. M. & R. 476, 1 Webster, l\ C. 158, is also an authority to shew [447] that there may be a valid patent for the application of a known material to produce a n......