THE PATENT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 146, 21 June 1890, Page 5

THE PATENT CASE.

STOKES V. MoCAUL,

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

At the Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a special jury, there was continued the case of Stokes and Another v. McCaul, an action for injunction to prevent defendant from making a certain class of nail, which plaintiffs claim is an infringement ot their patent. The plaintifis also claim damages for the alleged infringement of patent. The evidence in the case has already been given. It was ' taken on Wednesday and Thursday. This morning the argument of counsel was taken. . v; Mr Hosketh addressed the jttry at considerable length oh tho evidence. He contended that the alleged invention of Stokes was nothing new, because cup headed nails of one sort or another had.long before been made in England, while in "Auckland they had been made by Randall, Miller, Parker, and others. The wording of the specifications, too, was bad, for one could hardly tell from it what the applicant considered his invention, and plaintiff had seen this weakness and admitted it by putting in an amended specification. There was no difference in the use of the nails. Allowing the plaintiff all the advantage, of the words '' cup - headed self - adjusting tinned-wire nail, yet there was nothing new in the invention. Parker's nail had all these qualities and was used in exactly the same way. It was clear that Stokes had seen Parker's nail, and had.tben made some slight change and patented it. Referring to the specifications, Mr Hesketh argued that they did not show the manner in which the manufacture was to be performed. His Honor stated that he bad already mentioned that he would direct the jury that " performed " did not mean " made." Mr Hesketh proceeded to say that the applicant for a patent must accurately describe the process of manufacture. But in this case be . had neither described the process nor* given directions which would enable an ordinary skilled man to make the article. He-had not even given particulars aa to the substance of which the article was to be made. Mr Heskebh was proceeding to quote authorities in support of his contentions regarding the specifications, but His Honor stated that he would lay down the law to the jury. Mr Hesketh said be did not wish in any way to trench on the duties of the learned judge, but he wished to support his argument . that the firocess must be accurately described, t was the duty of plaintiff in applying for his patent to lay all he knew before the public, so that there should be no mistake as to what the patent referred. to. The specifications must state with precision all about the patent. That they did not do so in this case was proved by. the, fact.that the counsel for the plaintiff had laboured greatly to find out what the witnesses might conclude from the specifications. MrHeskebfa then referred to the letters that had passed between McCaul and Davenport, and, reading them to the jury, contended that they were, if anything, an evidence of weakness on the part ofc Stokes. Mr flesketh concluded at 12 o'clock. Mr Cooper for plaintiffs then rose to reply. tHesaid the question in this case was important, not onjy for, the parties concerned, but for the public, for there .exists considerable confusion in the public mind as to the patent law. .Plaintiffs yraro, quite willing to let McCaul manufacture, his Thames nail or any other for which Stokes had not a patent. The specifications should be reasonably_construed in favour of the patentee. They were addressed to skilled workmen, and if such men could, understand the manufacture theatbe jury must find that the specifications sufficiently described the article for which the patent was granted. He submitted that the self-adjust-menb was a new value in roofing nails.' The English^nails could be dismissed from consideration. He tfext cong'dered that there was a distinct difference in principle between Stokes' nail and Parker's, for: the-latter could not strictly be called Self-adjusting. Mr Cooper coricluded his address atone o'clock, when the usual adjournment was taken. • The following. are the issues now before the jury, as agreed on by counsel for either- party:-—l, Does the specification sufficiently describe the invention for which plaintiff and Robb applied for letters patent, and the manner in which the same is to be performed? & What'was the invention alleged ? 3. Were plaintiff and Robb the first and true inventors of euchalleged idvehtionp 4. Has defendant infringed the letters patent granted to plajintiff and Robb? ' '** vf