MILKING PATENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 55, 7 March 1939, Page 12

MILKING PATENT

"STRIPPING^ OF COWS

INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED

INJUNCTION SOUGHT

What was described by counsel as an "impudent theft" of a patented idea that had substantially overcome two great bugbears of the dairy industry so far as it concerned machine-milking —the failure of machines adequately to "strip" cows, and damage caused to udders and teats —was the basis of an action for alleged infringement of patent, brought to the Supreme Court today before Mr. Justice Blair. The case is set down for three days.

The plaintiff is William Hutchison, manufacturer, of Hawera, and the defendants J. D. Howell and J. D. Sinclair, manufacturers and agents, of Dannevirke. Mr. G. G. G. Watson, with him Mr. H. Vautier, is appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. R. Cooper (Palmerston North) for the defendant.

The statement of claim said that the plaintiff was. the registered proprietor and present beneficial owner of letters patent for New Zealand, number 77895, dated May 11, 1937, in respect of an invention called "an automatic vacuum controlling device for use in milking machine installations."' It was alleged that the defendants had manufactured, or caused to be manufactured and sold, to numerous firms, persons, and companies, vacuum controlling and stabilising machines, .. comprising apparatus for controlling and stabilising the working vacuum of milking machines, in infringement of the letters patent. The plaintiff sought a writ of injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from manufacturing, using, selling, or offering or exposing for sale vacuum controlling devices in infringement or in colourable imitation; an inquiry as to damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the infringement, and payment by the defendants of any sum due; an order that the defendants deliver to the plaintiff t-o be destroyed all vacuum controlling devices made by i them or their agents infringing the I letters patent; and an order that the [defendants give in.writing the number jof devices sold, since the date of the plaintiffs letters patent, with the names and addresses of the purchasers. ! STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. The statement of defence denied that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor or beneficial owner of the let- . ters patent quoted; if he was, it was claimed that the letters were not good I and valid. .The defendants had, at various times, constructed certain I vacuum controlling devices for use in milking machine installations, but such devices had not been constructed in accordance with, or infringement of, the letters patent, if any, of which the plaintiff was the registered proprietor. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was the true and first inventor of the alleged invention as described in the letters patent. At the date of the letters patent, continued the statement, the apparatus complained of, so far as any similarity with the alleged invention claimed in the specification of the letters patent was concerned, represented merely what was done and in use in the art prior to the date of the letters patent. The alleged invention was obvious, and did not invoke any inventive step, having regard to what was known or used prior to the date of the letters patent. The specification of the letters patent did not distinguish what parts of the alleged invention were old and what were new. • Mr. Watson, in his opening address, said the device had proved of the utmost importance to the dairying industry in New Zealand. The two great bugbears of the industry, in so far as it depended on machine milking of cows, had been that all machines had failed to "strip" the cow, and damage 1 was caused to the udders and teats of cows by the machines. It was claimed that the plaintiff's device had substantially met those two great difficulties. 14,000 UNITS SOLD. The success of the machine, continued Mr Watson, was evidenced-by the fact that n o fewer than 14,000 unitshad been sold in the eighteen months i that the device had been on the market The plaintiff sought to restrain ; the defendants from what was nothing more than an impudent theft of his idea It was significant that Howeil was a former selling agent for the plaintiff, and Sinclair had t been a mechanical fitter employed by Howell in the selling of the plaintiff's machines. Evidence is proceeding.