Wood and Others v Zimmer and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1815 |
| Date | 01 July 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 161
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HOLT 68. WOOD V. ZIMMER 161 [58] July 1, 1815. wood and others v. zimmeb and others. (A patent is void. 1st. If the specification omit any ingredient, which, though not necessary to the composition of the thing, for which the patent is claimed, is a more expeditious and beneficial mode of producing the manufacture ; and, 2d. If previous to the patent being granted, the article has been publicly vended (though only four months) by the patentee himself.) This was an issue out of Chancery directed to try whether a patent, bearing date 20th of January 1812, was or was not a valid patent on the 5th of February 1813 The plaintiffs were assignees of Vanuriel, Zinck, and Co and the patent in question had been sold by the bankrupts, before their bankruptcy, to the defendants. The patent had been granted for a new made of making verdigrease, to be called British Imperial Verdigrease. The specification stated it to be produced from certain proportions of granulated copper and oil of vitriol boiled a certain time in a copper of a particular construction (which was described) and afterwards strained off and mixed with a solution of potash or soda. The verdigrease so produced was of a brighter green, and superior to the French verdigrease. A chemist gave evidence to the utility and novelty of the invention ; and a workman employed by the patentees proved that, by following the directions in the specification, the manufacture might be produced . he added, that he had manufactured it himself. It appeared, however, that Zinck was accustomed clandestinely, and unobserved by his workmen, to put aquafortis into the boiler, by means of which the copper was dissolved more rapidly. It appeared, likewise, that four months [59] previous to the patent, the bankrupts had sold an article, composed precisely in the same manner as that for which the patent had been obtained, under the name of Dutch Imperial Green. The Solicitor-G-eneral and Selwyn, for the defendants, made two objections . I. The specification omits the aquafortis, which was a material ingredient, and always employed by the bankrupts in manufacturing the verdigrease. 2. The verdigrease, under another marne, had been publicly vended by the bankrupts previous to their obtaining this patent Best, Serjeant, for the plaintiffs. 1. The specification is sufficient to make the verdigrease r the aqua fortts was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cullen v Welsbach Light Company of Australasia Ltd
-
Anonymous (1794) 6 Mod 263
...of one messuage, the variance cannot be amended after "nul tiel record" pleaded.-S. C. post, 310. S. C. 1 Salk. 52. S. C. 3 Salk. 32. S. C. Holt, 58, 762. S. C. 2 Ld. Eay. 1057. Error was brought of a judgment in ejectment: and the plaintiff not assigning error, the defendant in error broug......