Re Kay's Patent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1839 |
| Date | 13 June 1839 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 13 E.R. 10
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE LORDS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Mews' Dig. tit. Patent, F. 2. Renewal and Extension, a. S.C. 1 Web. P.C. 568. On point (i.) as to deduction of law expenses from profits (1 Web. P.C. 572), see In re Bett's Patent, 1862, 1 Moo. P.C. (N.S.), 62; In re Galloway's Patent, 1843, 1 Web. P.C. 729; In re Robert's Patent, 1839, 1 Web. P.C. 575; (ii.) as to no extension where patent manifestly bad, see In re Stoney's Patent, 1888, 5 R. P.C. 522. The practice on petitions for extension is now regulated by s. 25 of the Patents Act 1883 (46 and 47 Vict. c. 57), and rules scheduled to O. in C. of 26th Nov. 1897 (Stat. R. and O. 1899, p. 1837).
RE KAY'S PATENT * [June 13, 1839], Extension of Patent granted; pending a suit respecting the validity of the original Letters Patent. This was an application for a prolongation of the term of Letters Patent, granted the 26th of July 1825, to the Petitioner, James Kay, for new and improved machinery for preparing and spinning flax, hemp, and other fibrous substances,, by power. A caveat was entered, and an objection taken on the hearing, that the validity of the Patent was disputed, and was at that time the subject of a suit in Chancery. The Attorney-General (Sir John Campbell), on the part of the Crown, expressed his opinion that the matter of the Patent not being res judicata, but only Us pendens, the public had not such an interest as would justify his opposing the extension of the Patent, if their Lordships should think the merits sufficient. Sir Frederick Pollock, Q.C., for the Petitioner, after proving the usual notices, being about to show the want of adequate compensation, their Lordships called on Mr. Cresswell, Q.C., the Counsel for the parties [25] entering the caveat, to state the grounds of opposition; which being deemed insufficient, their Lordships granted an extension of the Patent for three years; * Present: Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Sir Herbert Jenner, and the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington. 10 LAING V. INGHAM [1839] III MOORE, 26 Lord Brougham observing, that if the Judicial Committee had seen that the Patent upon the face of it was manifestly and grossly illegal, they would not advise Her Majesty to grant an extension of it; though such extension...
To continue reading
Request your trial