COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 898, 18 August 1910, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE PATENT SKYLIGHT CASE. NO INFRINGEMENT. The Court of Appeal has decided that iron skylights manufactured according to the designs of Charles Griffiths,- of New Plymouth, are not an infringement of the patent held by John William Wade, of Auckland. The decision was delivered yesterday, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Cooper being on the bench. The appellants were' John William Wade, tinsmith" and plumber, of Gisborne, and Francis Fowler, George Squire Fowler, and Frederick Stokes, carrying on business l as F. and W.'Fowler, of Auckland, manufacturing plumbers, and the ■ rspondents were Hardley and Hardley, Ltd., manufacturing plumbers, .Auckland, ami Frederick Charles Griffiths, plumber,. New Plymouth.The appeal was from a decision of Mr. Justice Edwards in the Supreme Court at Auckland. Wade, who is the patentee of -"'Wade's Improved Iron Skylight Frame," had assigned the Auckland rights in the patent to F. and W. Fowler. Wade and the Fowlers, as plaintiffs, ' claimed that Hardley and Hardley had infringed their patent by making and • selling Griffiths's skylight frames,, which were manufactured under the patent granted to Griffltjis. Plaintiffs asked for an injunction to prevent such sales, and for royalties on the skylight sold/ At the' suggestion of Mr. Justice Edwards, tho questions in difference were referred to arbitrators, and in accordance with their findings, his Ilonour.decided that there were essential differences between the two kinds of skylights,, and he therefore gave jndKmcnt for i ho defendants. The 'plaintiffs asked the Appeal. Court to reverse this judgment and the appeal was heard on July 25 and 20. Jlr. C. P. Skerrctt, Iv.C, and Mr. E. ■ 0. Blomflold (of Auckland) appearing for the appellants, and Dr. Bamford, of Auckland, for the respondents. Tho Chief Justice, in his judgment, voslerdny, said it iicctncd to him that tho appointment of the arbitrators under the order of tho Supreme Court constituted them something more than more reporters'. U'hey- were arbitrator!! chosen for their expert, knowledge -to- deal -with an.

expert question, namelv, whether skylights that hail been constructed by tho detendauts were an infringement of the patent of the plaintilf. In such .a case, regard must be hud to the expert opinion of the three arbitrators and they unanimously found that there was im iniringemeut.- Before their unanimous clluision could be reviewed, the evidence must be clear that they had come to a wrong conclusion on this expert qucslion. Ho had not been convinced that they did come to a wrong conclusion. It might be said that the matter was one on the border line. There wus very much to. bo said in favour of ■ holding that there was an invasion of the patent. It appeared to him, however, as it appeared to him when ho decided the matter of Griffiths's patent, that there was a distinction between the mode of construction of tho skylight bv Griffiths and that followed by Wade. 'The! main point in Wade's patent, was the bead or galvanised wire ou which the glass rested, and in Griffiths's patent the glass did not rest on ,;my bead. There was a different construction to allow for' water coming in. Tire Court, had not to decide in this case whether Griffiths's patent was or was not a valid patent. It might be that it was an invalid patent. The. question that had to bo decided by the Court was, whether this particular skylight was an infringement of Wnde's. He did not think that the evidence conclusively proved this, though he would come to the conclusion that, but for Wade's patent, Griffiths might, not have been able to invent the skylight which ho had invented. His Honour ovas therefore of opinion that tho appeal should be dismissed with costs, on the middle scale, as from a distance. Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Jusfico Chanman concurred in separate judgments, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed; ,On the application of Mr. Skerrett. Inive fo appeal was provisionally'granted, security for costs to be found within three months.