FIELDING COY. LTD. V. RAINSFORD 4/1931

|

! J Feidug Cyl

} S-cRAINSFORD'S PATENTS. Ex parte J. FidLDING AND COY. LTD.

' i

ToT STARKE J. ° Two petitions have been presented by J.Fielding and Co Ltd, with the authority of the Attorney General, praying respectively for the revoca- tion of Letters Patent No. 23801 of 1925 and No. 5116 of 1926, granted. to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford. During the hearing, the attack upon Letters Patent Wo. 23801 was confined to Claims Nos. 1-14, both inclusive, and Caen 23, and that upon Letters Patent No. 5116 to Claims 1 to 8, both igolygare One of the conditions of a grant is that Letters Patent are void if the invention is not a new invention (See Patents Act 1903-21, First Sched- ule). And, under English law, if a patent were granted for two or more

inventions when one was not new, the patent was void, because the considera~

tion for the grant was the novelty of all, and, the consideration failing,

the Crown was deceived in its grant. (Morgan and anor v. Seaward and ors

2M. and W. 544, 1 W. P.C. 187). A patent now is granted for one invention

only, "but may contain more than one claim, but it shall not be competent

"in an action or other proceeding to take any objection to a patent on the

"ground that it comprises more than one invention". (Batents Act SS 33,65, English Patents Act 1907 S 14(2)). But I apprehend that under the English law if a pgtentee lays claim to something that is not new, the Letters Pa-

tent are void, because, as before, the consideration for the grant is the

novelty of all that is claimed, and, the consideration failing, the Crown

is deceived. (Wilson eto Ltd v. Wilson Ltd 20 R.P.C. at p19, Marchland v. |

Nicholson 10 R.P.C. 417, Deeley v. Perkes 1896 A.C. 496). :

dus

The Commonwealth Patents Act, Sec. 61, however, provides:

"Where the complete specification contains two or more claims in respect of.