IN THE MATTER OF SCHUTZE'S PATENT

648 Vol. XLI.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DES IG-l",," , AND TRADE MARK CASES. [No. 9 In the }.;Ia,tter of Ma,tter's Patent. Burne: Sho explains that in an affidavit, this. She says she knew nothing about ASTBURY J.-1 think the' Applicants will do very well with four years; it is more than, I expected the Crow-n would offer to t,he~l. 5 Byrne: If. your Lordship thinks so. .A.STBURY J.-Yes, four years. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEi---CHANCERY DIVISION. Beiore Mn, lYra-rch 10 IN JUSTICE AsrrBURY. isu; 19'24. THE MATTEH OF SCHUrrZg'S PATENrr. Pa,tent.-·Appliea,tion by Griqinaiiru; Siunmone for an extension: of the term. of the Patent.-I--ioss due to h08tilities.-" Patentee as such. "-Two years' extension granted.--Patents and Designs .A.cts, 1907 and 1919, Section 18, Sub-section (6). 15 Letters Patent. (No. 15567 of 1908), dated the 22nd of July, 1008, were. granted to Frederick Schutze in respect, of an invention of " Improvements " in the Mnnufacture of Nipples for Baby Soothers. anel Pacifiers and the like." On the 14t,h of J an,uary, 19'24, bhe Grurrtec a.pplied by Originat,ing Sum:mons for an extension of the term of the Paten t. 20 An affidavit in support. of the Application was made by the Applicant who deposed (inter alia) thaf after the grant, of the Patent, the Deponent, had commenced the manufacture of the patented invention; that in 19 the Deponent/Is business had been converted into a limited eompa,ny under the name of F./ Sch.uis:« &; Co. Ld, with a capital of 8,000 £1 shares, of which, until March, 25 1923, he had held 7,900 when he .hud transferred them to his daughter ; that the said company had continued the manufacture of the patented invention as licensees, but that no agreement for royalty payments had been entered into 80 long as the Deponent had remained the principal shareholder, the profits from the invention having been added to the other profits of the business and 30 halving come to him in the form of dividonds ; that the Deponent" since the transfer of his shares a.s aforesaid, had grant:ed to the said company an exclusive licence under the Patent at a. royalty payment, of one shilling per gross, of the patented articles; that, during and since the war the sales of the patented articles had diminished; that prior to the war the. said company had had a large and 35 rapidly increasing export, trade; that before the war the manufacture of. rubber 110 No.9] RE,PORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE l\fARK CASES. [Vol. XLI. I n. the Matter of Schui.ze /s Patent. teats had only been carried on on a small scale in this country and that the bulk of ths said company's supplies had come from abroad, and that, on the outbreak of war such supplies had been cut off, and that, although orders for large quantifies had been placed in this country, only small deliveries had been obtained, and that sufficient, quantities had not, been procurable until ,5 about, the middle of 1920; that as soon as possible after the war the Deponent, had erected a factory at, 'I'ottonham from which the said company then obtained all its supplies Of the patented articles ; that the said company's export trade had been practically put an end to by the outbreak of war and that the company was only then again beginning to get a, foothold in the foreign markets, 10 Eric Bousfield (instructed by Oan~pbell, Hooper and Todd) appeared for the Applioanb; Dighton Pollock (instructed by t,heSolicitor to the Board of Trade) appeared for the Com-ptroller-General, Bousfield: The affidavit sets out the sales; they increased from 1,300 gross in 1909 to 26.000 gross in 1914, of which 2'1,000 gross roughly were prior to the 15 outbreak of war. T'hen in the six years to 1920 there was a total sale of 28,000 gross. I submit that; there hats. been a, loss. of approximately 5 years in this. case. ASTBVRY l.~lVlr. Pollock, what, do you say ? Pollock: Your Lordship sees the figures of the sales of the; patented article in paragraph 6 :-For the year ending 31 BIt, December, 1915, 3,270 gross; that is a.. 20 drop; 5,000 gross in 1916 is. not so bad; 5,15~ in' 1917, a libtle better. There is. also this. point, which' has been dealt with in Broum' s Patent;* it, is a question for the Court to consider whether, where at the very beginning, in 1910, the business was converted into a limited company. so that really all that is lost is dividends on shares, the Applicant can really be said to have suffered loss 25 within Section 18, sub-section (6). ASTBURY J.-I think that the company is a person which suffers loss. there should be an extension of about a couple of years.. I think Pollock: If your Lordship says that I am eontont; I think that, is quite sufficient, . J.-1 think two years. things in 1921 and onwards. ASTBURY, 30 'I'he applicant, has made a big sale of these . '' Bousfield.' The Applicant had a large export trade, which was entirely cut off by the war Your Lordship sees there were 26,000 gross in 1914, and that the total sales in the next six years only amounted to j ust over thaf total, ,I do 35 submit that the loss is more than two years in this cage. ASTBURY J.-This iS not, a, case that impresses me very much. I think that if the Applicant ge1ts two years he will do very well. I * (1920) 37 R.P.C. 142. H L672 1250 7t.H fl. St.  (...truncated)