Westhead v Keene
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1838 |
| Date | 03 December 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 950
ROLLS COURT
[287] westhead v. keene. Dec. 3, 1838. A bill filed by a patentee, to restrain the piracy of his patent and for an account, did not distinctly state the specification, or explain the nature of the invention for which the patent right was claimed ; but it alleged that the specification was duly enrolled and that the drawings and description in the specification could not be set out in the bill, and it charged that the Plaintiff was the inventor and that the 1BBAV. 288. WESTHEAD V. KEENE 951 invention was new : the Court (not without some doubt) held, on the authority of Kay v. Marshall, that the bill was not demurrable. The bill stated that His late Majesty King William IV., by letters patent dated the 16th of February 1836, granted to the Plaintiff, his executors, &c., during the term of fourteen years, the sole privilege to make, use and vend a certain invention, being " an improved method of cutting caoutchouc or India rubber, leather, hides and similar substances, so as to render them applicable to various useful purposes ;" His Majesty thereby commanding, that no one should, during the said term, either directly or indirectly, use the said invention ; that the letters patent contained a proviso, that the said letters patent should not become vested in more than twelve persons at any one time as partners; and also a proviso requiring the specification of the Setters patent to be enrolled within six months. That, in compliance with such proviso, the Plaintiff did particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his said invention, and in what manner the same was to be performed, by an instrument in writing under his hand and seal, dated the 10th day of August 1836, explaining therein the aforesaid particulars, by drawings and a description thereof which, the bill alleged, could not be set mtt in the Plaintiff's bill; and did enrol the said instrument or specification in the High Court of Chancery, on the 16th of August 1836, within the six months for that purpose in the said letters appointed. [288] The only description of the invention contained in the bill was in the following passage, " That in the said specification were the words following:-Now, although the machine which I have above described answers the intended purpose of enabling me to carry into effect my improved method of cutting caoutchouc or India rubber, leather, hides and similar substances, so as to render them applicable to various useful purposes, I am fully aware that the same may be variously modified; as for instance^ instead of imparting a rectilinear or progressive movement, as well as a rotary motion to a piece of caoutchouc or India rubber, leather, hides or similar substances intended to be cut into fillets, a revolving motion only may be imparted; and by causing the pedestal or bearings, upon which the revolving cutters work, to be fixed upon or attached to a sliding carriage and made to advance in the direction of the material to be operated upon, a similar effect may be produced, and the caoutchouc, leather, hides or other similar substance, may be cut into fillets or tapes of the required thickness. It is also obvious, that instead of using revolving or circular cutters, longitudinal or straight knives or cutters may be applied, to which rapid reciprocating motion may be given, for the purpose of cutting the caoutchouc, hides and similar substances into fillets. The position of the various motions and parts of the machinery for the accomplishment of my method of cutting the materials may also be considerably varied, if required, and rendered more completely self-acting and independent of the operative or attendant; but as one great advantage arising from the adoption of my improved method, is that of cutting pieces of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Troup v Richardo
...(2 E. & B. 395); Kemot v. Pittis (Ibid. 421); Anon. (5 L. T. N. S. 403); ffV-[491]-maki v. De Lisle (3 Beav. 18); Westhead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287); Rochfart v. Batttrsby (2 H. L. Gas. 388); Dysm v. Hornby (7 De G. M. & G. 1); Heath v. Cliad-wick (2 Ph. 649). the lord chancellor. Two causes o......
-
Roberts v Roberts
...Allan v. Allan (15 Ves. 130), Belfast v. Chichester (2 J. & W. 439). In support of the second ground, they referred to Wesihead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287 ; see 295) as an authority that a misjoinder of Defendants was a good ground of demurrer but [636] the lord chancellor intimated to the couns......