Hopkins v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd [1910] UKHL 622
(Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) , Lords Macnaghten , Atkinson , Collins , and Shaw .)47 SLR 622Hopkins v. Linotype and Machinery Limited.Subject_ Patent — Improvement — Original Patent Rendered more Useful or Valuable — Ambiguous Specifications. Facts:Any addition to a patented article which renders it cheaper or more effective, valuable, easy, or useful, or preferable as an article of commerce, is an “improvement” even although such improvement might be used without an infringement of the original patent.Observed (per the Lord Chancellor)—if the specification of a patent is framed so as to be ambiguous the Courts may declare the patent void.The appellant was bound under contract to communicate to the respondents any improvements to a patented machine manufactured by them, which might come to his knowledge. He afterwards took out letters-patent for mechanical inventions of the nature of improvements to this class of machine, but refused to communicate them to the respondents. The respondents sued upon the contract, and judgment in their favour was affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy , M.R., Buckley and Kennedy , L.JJ.).At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships gave judgment as follows
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) —I wish to say a few words preliminary to the advice which I shall offer to your Lordships as to the decision of this particular case. The appellant has filed a specification which resembles a treatise in its length, and contains no less than sixty claims. There is infinite redundancy and repetition and constant references to illustrations which are not easy to follow. Altogether it is a document which needs a most prolonged and penetrating study in order that anyone who wishes to work out problems of invention in this class of industry may know where he stands and how he may be free from the danger of infringing former patents. The point whether this patent is good or not is not raised in this case, but I think that it is my duty to state explicitly that those who file and secure specifications must take the risk of having the whole thing declared void for ambiguity. I have had occasion to observe that there is a tendency to frame specifications and claims so as to Puzzle a student, and to frighten men of business into taking out a licence for fear that their interpretation may be held erroneous and they be found guilty of infringement. That is an abuse of thePage: 623 ↓
Lords Macnaghten , Atkinson , Collins , and Shaw concurred.Appeal dismissed.Counsel for Appellant— J. Ewart Walker — C. H. Thorpe. Agents— Foss, Bilbrough, Plaskett, Foss, & Bryant, Solicitors.Counsel for Respondents — Bousfield, K.C.— A. J. Walter, K.C.— H. E. Wright. Agents— Hays, Schmettau, & Dunn.