In the Matter of Horstmann, Horstmann and Edgar’s Patent

REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES. EDITOR: FRANK G. UNDERHAY, M.A., BARRISTER-AT-LAW. IN THE HIGH OOURT OF JUSTICE-OHANCERY DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE TOMLIN. April 3rd and 17th, 1928. IN THE MATTER OF HORSTMANN, HORSTMANN AND EDGAR'S PATENT. 5 Patent.-Application by Originating -Svummons for an extension of the term of the Patent.e-Patent having expired for six months at the date of the Summon.s.-Reasons for delay.-Evidence.-Extension of time in which to apply granted.-An eateneioa of three years from the date of expiry g1·anted.-Oonditions.s-Patente and Designs Act's, 1907 and 1919, Section 18, subsections (1) 10 and (6). Letters Patent, No. 14,825 of 1911, dated the 26th of June, 1911, were granted to Gustav Otto Hermann Horstmann, Ernst Hermann Horstmamai and W,illiam Thomson Edgar in respect of an invention of U Improvements in Gas ConU trollers, Electric Time Switches and other Timing Devices." On the 25th of In June, 1927, the Patent expired, On the 29th of December, 1927, Horstmann Gear Co., Ld., applied by Or-iginating Summons for an order that the time within which an application under Section 18 could be made might be extended and for an extension of the term of the Patent. An affidavit in support of the application was made by Ernst Hermaavn 20 Horstmann (Managing Director and Secretary of the Applicant Company) who deposed (inter alia) tha.t the Applicant Oompany were the registered proprietors of the Pa.tent; thad; the patented invention was mainly supplied to municipalities and other bodies having large illuminating systems to manage; that the severe restriction placed on municipal lighting during the WitT had 25 caused loss of orders; that the Company had commenced to manufacture munitions in September, 1915, and that in 1'916 it had become a controlled establishment; that the reasons for the delay in issuing the Originating Summons wereas follows, viz.-That the Deponent was personally in charge of the patents owned by the Applicant Company, and that he was in the practice of keeping 30 a forward business diary at the Company's premises in which he noted at the' date of paying the final renewal fee the date upon which the patent concerned was due to expire; that the payment of the final renewal fee in respect of the. A [No.1. 30TH JANUARY, 1929. Vol. XLVI.] No. 1.J REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES. [Vol. XLVI. In the Matter of Horstmann, Horstmann and Edgar's Patent. Patent, the subject of the Application, had been made in June, 1926, during his absence from the Company's Office caused by a serious and prolonged illness which had prevented him from attending with any degree of regularity at the Oompany's Office for a period of over three months, and which had necessitated his taking things very easily for several more months; and that 5 the papers in connection with the said renewal fee had been brought to him at his home, and that he had there prepared the necessary form, but had forgotten to give instructions for the requisite entry to be made in his forward diary at the Oompany's Office, and that when, in December, 1927, he had discovered that the Patent had expired, he had promptly given instructions 10 for the issue of the Originating Summons. D. H. Cor'sellis (instructed by Freeman, Haynes & Go.) appeared for the Applicants; Seafford Crossman (instructed by the Solicitor to the BOU1'"d of Trade) appeared for the Comptroller-General. Oorsellie, for the Applicants.-The circumstances here are similar to the 15 circumstances under which applications are made to the Comptroller to restore a patent which has lapsed owing to non-payment of, fees. [He referred to Brown's Patent, (1920) 37 R.P.O. 52.] Crossman, for the Comptroller-General.-The evidence as to the reasons for the delay in making the Application is very unsatisfactory. There are no 20 particulars as to the dates when the Deponent was absent from his office, and, in particular, as to the circumstances which led him to find out, in December, that the Patent had expired. I think that further particulars should be given. TO,MLIN J.-When persons are coming to the Court for an indulgence of this sort their evidence ought to be more satisfactory than this. I will give the 25 Applicants an opportunity of supplementing their evidence. There must be no delay about it. I will deal with the Summons on the first day of next Sittings. . A further affidavit was made by E. H .•Horst1nann in which he deposed (inter alia) that the Applicant Oompany owned or controlled nineteen patents, four- 30 teen of which were British, andl that all matters relating thereto were within the Deponent's personal province; that the Deponent's co-managing directors dealt solely with the manufacturing .and works side of the Applicant Company's business, and that the Deponent had sole management of the administration work and that all papers and letters referring to the Applicant Oompany's 35 business as regards patent matters were set aside for the Deponent's personal attention; that on the 6th of April, 1926, the Deponent had contracted influenza, which had been followed by illness, and that in consequence for a period of three months, with the exception of approximately six days, he had been unable to attend at the Applicant Company's office; that during the period 40 of the Deponent's disablement, amongst other papers, the final renewal reminder in respect of the Pat-ent had been brought to him at his house for his personal .attention; that it had been the Deponent's intention to note the date for .applying for an extension of the term of tili.~ Patent in his forward diary when he should next be at his office, but that, owing to his illness, he had 45 "not heen at his office until eighteen days thereafter, and that when he had returned to his office, owing to the arrears of work which had required his urgent attention, he had forgotten to make the necessary entry in his diary; -that. the question of renewal fees or expiries had! not entered the Deponent's .mind again until December, 1927, when he was dealing with the renewal of 50 3 Vol. XLVI.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES. [No.1. In the Matter of Horstmann, Horstmann and Edgar's Patent. A2 another of the Applicants Oompany's patents, and that it had flashed through his mind that several of the Company's patents must be approaching expiration, and that on looking up the dates, he had found that the Patent lhad expired; that, if an extension were granted, the Applicant Company was 5 willing to submit to the imposition of the conditions set out in Rule 63 of the Patent Rules, 1920. An affidavit was also made by Oliver Oolville, M.D., who confirmed 'the statement that the Deponent, E. H. Horstmann, had been prevented' from attending the business owing to illness. -10 The ISummons again came before the Court on the 17th of April, 1928. Corsellis,---<Mr. Horstmann is here, and can, if required, give e (...truncated)