IN THE MATTER OF ARGYLLS LD., PERROT AND RUBURY’S PATENT

.161 Vol. XLIII.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND ~RADE MARK CASES. [No.6. Bon-nella v. Eepir, the practice accurately. A plaintiff must first of all establish his case for an interlocutory injunction, and then it may be that, notwithstanding that, the Court, will relieve the defendant from an injunction upon his undertaking to keep an account" if he is a, person of such substance that the undertaking will give :> the relief which the plaintiff requires. But, unless and until the plaintiff has made, out a prima facie ease :!jor an injunction, those considerations, in my opinion, do not enter into the, question. The , result is that, upon this motion I make no order. Mr. Trevor Watson asks me to dismiss the motion with COSltS. I will not do that, but I will 10 make an Order that the costs of the motion shall be costs in the action, and the result will be that, if Mr. Trevor Wat80n is right that there is no infringement, the Defendant will get the costs in the action, There. will be no order except thaf the costs of the motion be, costs in the action. Mr. Trevor Wa,t80n, the Defendant ought to undertake to keep an, account. 15 Trevor Wa ,t80n.-Yes, my Lord, the Defendant undertakes to keep an account, I offered that right a,t the beginning. RUSSE,LL J.-It is on that undertaking that there will be no order on the motion, except that the costs of the motion be costs in the action, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION. 20 Before MR. JUSTICE TOMLIN. February Brd, April 21st, June 17t,h and December 16th, 1925. IN THE 'MATTER OF ARGYLLS Ln., PERROT AND R,UBURY'S PATENT. Pa.tent.-Application by .Originating Surnrnons for an. extension of the term of the Patent.-Opposition.-Notice of Opposition: out of tlimc 25 alloused to proceed.-OpPo8ition withdrawn,.-Evidence of circumeiamces of withdra,waJ directed.-ApP'Lication premature.s-Bummone adjourned till later date:.-Th1>ee yeaT8!' eeieneion. qranted.e-Pateni« and Designs Act8, 1907 and 1919, Section 18, Subeection. (6).-Rule8 of the Supreme Court, Order LIllA., Rule 4 (f) (h). 30 Letters Patent, No. 6807 of 19 da,t,ed the 18th of M1arch, 1910, were granted to Argylls Ld. , Henri Perrot andJ ohn 'Meredith Rubury in respect of an invention of " Improvements in 0[[' relating to Front Wheel Brakes for " Motor Vehicles." On the 25th of July, 192'4, Henri Perrot applied by Originating Summons for an eltension of the term of the Patent. 35 In support of the, Application an affidavit by the Applicant, was filed from which it, appeared (inter alia) that in 19'10 the Applicant had been chief J.-OpP08it£on 110, 162 ,No.5.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES. [Vol. XLIII. In the Motter of ArgyUs Ld., Perrot and Rubury's Patent. designer of ATgylls Ld., Motor Engineers, and that in that year he had made the invention, the subject of the Patent, and that by arrangement with the said company the Patent had been granted jointly to the oomp1any, tihe Applicant and J. M. Rubury; that the said J. M. Rubury had assisted the Applicant in .the preparation od: the drawings, and t,hat by arrange:r:nent he,t'YeeD. 5 the said company and the Applicant, the company were exclusively entitled to work the Patent as licensees free of royalty; that the Patent had belen worked by the said company from 1911 till 1914 in which year the. company had gone into voluntary liquidation, but that neither the Applicant nor J. }'1. Rubu'l'Y had received any remuneration in any form from the company 10 iurespeob of such working; that, the patented invention had become a subject of interest to engineers and users of motor cars, but that at the outbreak of war it had not been. used except by Argylls Ld.; that bhe outbreak of war had prevented the further progress of the idea until comparatively recently, and t.hat the interest of the: public and motor manufacturers had not been 15 revived in such devices until 1921 or thereabouts ; that on the, 2nd of August, 1914,thel Applicant, as a French citizen, had heen obliged to join the Colours and had served with the French Army until J'une, 1919; that in June, 1916, the Applicant had acquired from the Liquidators of Agrylls Ld, for the sum of £250 that company's right in, the Patent, and that in April, 1918, he had 20 purchased J. M. Rubury's share in the Patent for the sum of,£200, and that in May, 1918, her had become registered as the sole legal owner of the Patent; that after his demobilisation the Applicant, had made eVlery effort to interest motor firms in the patented invention, and had granted a number of Iicences under the P a t t m t l . ' 25 Affidavits in support of the Application were also made by Frederic Robertson S1nith, (Chief Engineer of Armstrong, Siddeley Motors Ld.) and ceeit Clement Bianchi (Works' (Manager of CTossley Motors Ld.) who deposed (inter alia) that in 1912, their attention had been drawn to methods of braking motor vehicles Bouch as t,hat covered by the Patent, but that in 19 the tests 30 insisted on by their respective companies had not been made; and that in their opinion. thedevelopment of brakes such as the patented invention reached in 1920 would have been reached in 1915 but for causes due, to the Wa~. On the 2nd of February, 1925 (the day before the " appointed day") General Motor» Corporation; of Detroit, U.S.A., gave Notice' of Opposition. On the 35 Brd of February, 1925, on the application to fix 'a day, it was ordered that the Opponents should be at liberty to lodge Particulars of Objections without prejudice 10 the question whether they were entitled to object. By their Particulars of Objections the Opponents alleged ,(1) That the Applicant was not the true and first inventor, or, alternativ ely , thab he was 40 not the sole -teue and first inventor, (2) That the evidence did not disclose the existence of patents granted abroad. (3) That the Applicant's remuneration had been adequate. (4) Insufficient merit or- utility, (5) No sufficient loss Or' damage. (6) That no explanation had been given as to the arrangement existing between Argylls Ld. and the' Applicant from 1911 tOI 1914. (7) That 45 there was no evidence as to the dealings in theP'a.tent by Argylls Ld. (8) That Argyll8 I.Jd. and J. M. Rubury were! necessary parties to the Application. (9) That the .Application wag premature. An affidavit was made by Ma,tthew Aikineon. Adam. (Consulting Engineer) who deposed (in,ter a,ria) thab the instructions to oppose had been received 50 by cable: on the 30th of J'anuary, 1925. 114 163 Vol. XLIII.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES. [No.5. In the' Matter of ArgyU8 Ld., Perrot and Rubury'8 Patent: The Summons came before the Court on the 21st 0& April, 1925, on the question as to whether the Opponents should be allowed to bel heard. . R. Morite (instructed by Horner & Horner) appeared tor the Applicants ; Tr.evor Wat:son (Instructed by Long and Gardiner) appeared for the Opponents; 5 Diqhion. Pollock (instructed by the Solicitor to (...truncated)