BATTLE OF MILLIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 15174, 3 May 1913, Page 11

BATTLE OF MILLIONS.

VERDICT FOR LEVER BROS. IN SOAP WAR. Of immense importance to the industrial world was a reserved judgment given by Mr Justice Neville, in the Chancery Division, in the big soap patent fight, “ Joseph Crosfieid and Sons, Ltd. v. Techno-Chemical Laboratories, Ltd., and Nils Testrup,” after a trial lasting 16 days. It was explained by counsel that the fight was really between Messrs Brunner Mond and Co. and Messrs Lever Bros., the former having absorbed Messrs Crosfieid and Messrs Lever having become the assignees of the Nils Testrup process and patent rights. Messrs Brunner Mor.d claimed to hold the master patent, wliich they alleged was being infringed by defendants. Messrs Brunner Mond and Messrs Lever have become keen rivals in the soap-making industry, and it was said in court that in the present case a matter of £250,000 a year ivas concerned, but probably the financial interests actually involved are much greater than this.—Mr- Astbury (for defendants) described the quarter of a million as a “mere trine” to the parties. Messrs Lever Eros, have a capital of £8,000,000, and Messrs Brunner Mond have £5,000,000, figures which will give some idea of the magnitude of the operations carried on by the two firms. The action directly or indirectly affected the whole of the soap-making firms, the many great corporations engaged in the manufacture of caudles, manufacturers of many foodstuffs that enter largely into the budget of every household in the kingdom, and notably those of the poor, and the whole of the whale, fish, and vegetable oil irdustries of the world. The disputed patent, it was claimed, involves a process for making available for certain purposes the lower forms of fat, such as fish ard vegetable oils, which in their natural condition are not suit able for the making of the best soaps, or for candles, or, most important ol all, for human food in the shape of margarine. The action was brought to restrain an alleged infringement of the patent, which was granted to Dr Wilhelm Normann, of Herford, Westphalia, but the main question turned upon defendants’ attack Upon it. Defendants set up the usual defence of prior common knowledge and publication, and declared that the results claimed could not be obtained by following the directions given in the specification, but only by means of a _ secret process known solely to the_ plaintiffs, this fact rendering the specification insufficient and the_ patent invalid.—Mr Justicr Neville, in giving judgment, said with regard to the patent in question, it related to a process of saturation by hydrogenisation with a catalyst. Suck a method of catalysation had already been disclosed, but the patentee claimed a process which would apply to the saturation of all unsaturated fatty acid: and their glycerides. The patentee apparertly referred to the process as applicable to- such acids, both in a liquid and in a vapor state. He (the Judge), however, did not think that vaporisation formed part of the process, and the vaporisation of fats and oils was not possible, at all events commercially. The real question was: Could the claim for the liquid process described in the patent be sustained P He had been very much struck with the evidence of Di Lewkovitch, who was called for the defence. _ Witness had experimented with a dew to obtaining the resull prior to 1903, the date of Nermann’s patent. In the light of the knowledge given by Nermann’s specification, and with the knowledge that was contained in the papers of Sabatier and Moisan, which were referred to by Normann, he continued his experiments without success, and it was not until after publication of a, further paper, published by Sabatier in 1905, and a subsequent two years of further experimenting, that he was able to discover how all unsaturated fatty acids could be catalysed. That was very important evidence if Normann’s claim 0f_1903 was read as he (the Judge) read it—a claim for the catalysation of all unsaturated fattv acids with a catalyst of finely divided nickel and other metals. It was claimed for Normann’s patent that it was a master patent, but he did not think ho could put upon it the construction sought to be put upon it by plaintiffs’ counsel. He must read the claim in its wide sense. So reading the patent he must hold that the patentee had not sufficiently disclosed the process 1m claimed. Plaintiffs therefore failed, and the action must be dismissed with costs, tho Court being of opinion that the patent was bad.—Mr Walter, K.C. (for plaintiffs), objected. There was no power in the Court in these proceedings, he said, to declare the patent void, and that would be the effect of such a declaration.—Mr Jerkins. K.C (for defendants), did not press for any statement of opinion in the order, and his lordship said ho would make ’it i~ the usual form.—On the application of Mr Jenkins, K.C., an order was made as to costs.