HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0204 and id is 1 raw text is: SIMISTER'S PATENT (IN iE) [1842]
[164] RE SIMISTER'S PATENT * [July 15, December 7, 8, 1842].
Extension of the term of Letters Patent refused, although the profits derived from
the patent article was less than the expenditure incurred upon the patent;
the utility of the invention being small.
The fact of an invention, when known, not getting into general use, is a pre-
sumption against its utility.
This was an application for an extension of the term of Letters Patent granted to
the petitioner, bearing date the 18th of December 1828, for improvements in
weaving, preparing, or manufacturing a cloth or fabric, and the application thereof
to the making of stays and other articles of dress, which improvements are also
applicable to other purposes.
The petitioner stated, that at the time of granting the said Letters Patent, the
cloth or fabric used for stays was woven or manufactured according to the usual
and well-known methods of weaving; and stays were made by placing two surfaces
of such cloth together, and sewing or stitching by the hand, in such manner as to
leave the requisite spaces for the introduction of the whalebone or other article with
which stays were or might be fitted. The petitioner then stated the expenses in-
curred, and difficulties encountered, in making and introducing the invention, the
opposition of the trade, and infringement of the invention, and the litigation and
expense incurred in protecting the patent; that no profits had been received for
some time, and that the profits during the last six years had not equalled the
petitioner's losses; so that on the whole there had been a loss on the invention. A
disclaimer had been inrolled as to so much [165] of the invention as did not relate
to the making of stays.
Caveats were entered, and notices of objection given by several parties, to the
validity, the novelty, and the specification of the patent, and alleging, among other
things, that the petitioner had compromised certain legal proceedings taken to
protect the patent, which were particularly referred to in the petition, by the pay-
ment of money, with a view of prejudicing and deterring other parties known to
the petitioner to be infringing the patent; that in consequence of the petitioner's
not interfering to stop such infringements, the opponents had embarked a large
capital in machinery for manufacturing the stay fabric by steam power, and that
it was not until the fabric so woven by steam power, drove out of the market the
fabric woven in the loom, that the petitioner thought of amending his patent by
disclaimer, with a view to the present application.
The petitioner examined witnesses to prove the novelty and utility of the in-
vention, the expenses incurred in perfecting, and the small profits hitherto obtained
from the sale of the manufacture, by which it appeared that the profits derived from
the sale were £81278 less than the expenditure incurred, exclusive of interest. The
petitioner did not appear to have had knowledge of the opponents being the parties
engaged in infringing his patent, though it was certain that stays of a fabric made
by power weaving were in the market without any legal proceedings being taken.
The short portion which remained of the term of the patent, after inrolment of the
disclaimer, was suggesied as the cause of this.
[166] Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Webster, for the petitioner.
The Solicitor-General, (Sir Wm. Follett,) and Mr. Cowling, for the opponents,
cited Erard's Patent ([1] Webster's Pat. Cases, 557).
Their Lordships expressed an opinion, during the argument, that the fact of
an invention, when known, not getting into general use is a presumption against
its utility, that one of the considerations for extending the term of Letters Patent,
is, that the public will be benefited after the term has expired, which did not appear
here; and they held that there was not sufficient grounds shown for reporting to Her
Majesty that the patent ought to be renewed. Petition dismissed.
[Mews' Dig. tit. PATENT, F. CONFIRMATION, etc. 2. a. S.C. 7 Jur. 451. On point
* Present: Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Erskine, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, and
the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington.
IV MOORE, 164](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0204&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)