MARCONI WIRELESS COMPANY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3033, 1 May 1912, Page 5

MARC ONI WIRELESS COMPANY.

CASE AGAINST THE CROWN. WELLINGTON, April 23. The Court of Appeal, consisting of tiia Chief Justice (Sir R. Stout), Justices Williams, Denniston, Edwards, and Chapman, sat this morning to hear argument in the case stated of the Marooni Wireless Telegraph Company (Ltd.) v. the King. Tne proceedings are but an episode in the world-wide dispute between the Marconi Company and the owners of the Telefunken system of wireless telegraphy as to the validity of their respective patents. The New Zealand Government has entered into a contract with the Australian Wireless (Ltd.) for the establishment of stations in New Zealand to be worked by the Telefunken system. The Government has in addition installed a wireless system at the General Post Office, Wellington. Tim Marconi Company has brought a petition of right alleging actual and threatened infringement of its patents, and claiming damages and relief in the nature of an injunction in respect of the infringement and the threatened infringements. The matter comes before the Court of Appeal by way of a case rated for the argument of the following questions of law (1) Whether the petition filed herein discloses any cause of action against his Majesty; (2) whether the court has any jurisdiction to grant against his Majesty the relief claimed in the petition. The Solicitor-general appears for the Grown, Messrs H. D. Bell, K.C., C. P. Skerrett, K.C.. and A. R. Meek for the Marconi Company. The Solicitor-general contended that the Crown has an absolute right to use any patent-, but if it does; so the patentee lias the right of compensation assessed by the machinery provided by section 31 of “ The Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1908 (New Zealand),” but, he said, there was no jurisdiction in the court to hear a petition of right or grant the relief sought. In explaining the Crown’s attitude, he said that the Crown is prepared, if the Marooni Company obtains judgment in Australia or New Zealand establishing validity of their patents and infringement by the Telefunken system, to pay a reasonable compensation, but it is not prepared to embark on a long and protracted litigation as to the infringement of patents which ought to be fought out between the Marconi Company and the Australian Wireless (Ltd.). Mr Bell. K.C., for the Marconi Company, submitted that the first part of section 31 confers a right upoh the company to sue for infringement by the Crown. The second part- confers a right upon the Crown to use the patent on these terms. If it elects before or after use to pay compensation; but it does not confer the right upon the Crown to deny the validity of the patent or make the patent any less binding on the Crown. He contended that, since the Crown had saiid “ We ore not using your patent, and therefore do not intend to pay compensation.” the cornpanv had the right to proceed by petition of right. He also said the relief sought could be granted. The court reserved its decision.