Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In this case, which was an action of damages for an alleged infringement, by the defender, of the patent of the pursuer for making gas pipes, a motion was made, after the case had been remitted to the Jury Roll and a condescendence and answers lodged, but before the record was closed, on the part of the pursuer, ‘to allow persons of skill in such matters to inspect the defender's works in presence of the pursuer and his mandatary, or either of them, and of the agents of the parties.’
The Lord Ordinary reported the point to the Court, and minutes of debate were ordered.
Lord President .—I think it clear that we must order some inspection in this case; for unless we order some investigation into the mode in which the defender's works are conducted, any man may infringe a patent with impunity, because he has only to aver, that his method is one which is known only to himself, and which must be kept secret, in order to escape from an action for a breach of a patent.
Lord Gillies .—I concur in the opinion delivered, and I am inclined to adopt the order which was given in a case between the same parties in England.
Lord Ordinary, Fullerton. Act. Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Whigham. Alt. Sol.-Gen. (Rutherfurd,) G. G. Bell. John Macandrew, S. S. C. and Fisher & Duncan, S. S. C. Agents. D. Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.