R v Comptroller-General of Patents, ex parte Tomlinson

Last updated

R v Comptroller-General of Patents, ex parte Tomlinson
Microcosm of London Plate 022 - Court of Chancery, Lincoln's Inn Hall edited.jpg
Court of Chancery
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameThe Queen v. The Comptroller-General of Patents. Ex parte Tomlinson
Decided11-12 April 1899
Citation(s)16 R.P.C. 233, L. R. [1]
[1899] 1 QB 909 (CA) [2]
Transcript(s) Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases
Case history
Appealed from High Court of Justice
Court membership
Judges sitting
Keywords

R v Comptroller-General of Patents, ex parte Tomlinson [1899] 1 QB 909 (CA), [2] or Ex parte Tomlinson, [5] is a United Kingdom patent case concerning standing in terms of who can have an interest in opposing the grant of a patent. An application for a writ of mandamus was made to compel the Comptroller to hear and determine the arguments for Tomlinson's opposition. The appeal was dismissed as there were existing provisions to deal with an improperly granted patent where more directly interested persons were able to apply for the revocation of the patent in question. The Court of Appeal held that the decision of the Law Officer was the final authority.

Contents

Facts

Felix Meyer had an existing patent in 1897 relating to looms. The next year, Meyer applied for a further patent in order to make improvements to the operation of power looms so as to be able to weave two or more cloths at the same time. [4]

John Dania Tomlinson was involved in the adaptation of looms under the provisions of Meyer's earlier patent of 1897. [6] Tomlinson stopped work and gave notice opposing the grant of a patent on the basis that the invention had already been patented in the United Kingdom under two prior applications. [2]

When Tomlinson approached the Comptroller-General to oppose Meyer's patent, he asserted that he was merely a member of the public and that he had no interest in the patent. [7] Under section 95 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57), the Comptroller was able to go to the Law Offices and present this case of "a man in the street", Tomlinson, who was applying in opposition of the granting of Meyer's patent, and whether he has a locus standi . [4]

Judgment

Smith LJ held that under Section 18 (4), the Law Officer was the final authority in deciding whether a person is entitled to be heard by the Comptroller or the Law Officer in opposition to a request for leave to amend a specification. [2] A writ of prohibition against the Comptroller-General of Patents was refused on the grounds that the applicant had not shown that they were unable to obtain a hearing with the Comptroller on a specific point raised and that the decision of the Comptroller-General or the Law Officer was final. [8]

On the issue of an interested person, Smith LJ held that the wording in Section 11 of the Act should be taken to mean "a person having an interest in the patent", and not just "any person" from whom their invention was taken. [6]

Significance

Smith LJ posed the question as to who can enter a nolle prosequi and stated that the attorney general (or their fiat) [9] were "supreme in that matter". [2] The judgment in this appeal makes it clear that the attorney general's unique power to stop legal proceedings is not reviewable by the courts. [3]

... where a man who is tried for his life and convicted alleges that there is error on the record, he cannot take advantage of that error unless he obtains the fiat of the Attorney-General and no court in the kingdom has any controlling jurisdiction over him. That perhaps is the strongest case that can be put as to the position of the Attorney-General in exercising judicial functions.

A. L. Smith LJ,R v Comptroller-General of Patents, ex parte Tomlinson [1899] 1 Q.B. 913–914 [10]

Related Research Articles

In law, ex parte is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

A patent attorney is an attorney who has the specialized qualifications necessary for representing clients in obtaining patents and acting in all matters and procedures relating to patent law and practice, such as filing patent applications and oppositions to granted patents.

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.

Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)</span> Patent Office of the United Kingdom

The Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom is, since 2 April 2007, the operating name of The Patent Office. It is the official government body responsible for intellectual property rights in the UK and is an executive agency of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

There are four overriding requirements for a patent to be granted under United Kingdom patent law. Firstly, there must have been an invention. That invention must be novel, inventive and susceptible of industrial application.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom</span> Privileges and immunities of the British monarch

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch, recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

In common law, the principle of prosecutorial discretion allows public prosecutors a wide latitude to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime, and which charges to file. A similar principle in continental law countries is called the principle of opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law</span> Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

Ex parte Wood, 22 U.S. 603 (1824), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent could not be repealed based on summary proceedings without the opportunity for a jury trial. The case exemplifies a tradition in early 19th century United States patent caselaw in which patents were regarded specifically as an absolute property right to exclusive use of the invention, rather than requiring a balancing between public and private interests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attorney General of the Gambia</span> Cabinet-level position in the Gambia

The Attorney General of the Gambia is a cabinet-level position in the Gambia responsible for providing legal advice to the Gambian government and appearing on its behalf in the courts of the land. In recent years, the post has been held in conjunction with that of Minister of Justice, who is the head of the Ministry of Justice and responsible for legal affairs. The current Attorney General is Dawda A. Jallow.

Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that in criminal prosecutions "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" In this case, a defendant was tried for trespassing and the initial jury could not reach a verdict. The prosecutor neither dismissed nor reinstated the case but used an unusual procedure to leave it open, potentially indefinitely. Klopfer argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial. In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.

DABUS is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system.

References

  1. Reports of patent, design, and trade mark cases. Vol. 39. United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell Limited. 1922. p. 338.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "The Queen v. The Comptroller-General of Patents. Ex parte Tomlinson". Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases. XVI (12): 233–247. 17 May 1899. doi: 10.1093/rpc/16.12.233 . ISSN   1756-1000 . Retrieved 2 August 2022 via Oxford University Press (OUP).
  3. 1 2 Barnett, Hilaire (2002). Constitutional and Administrative Law (4th ed.). London: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 160. ISBN   9781843144755. On proceedings of indictment, the Attorney General, in the name of the Crown, can enter a nolle prosequi, the effect of which stops the legal proceedings. The power is not subject to the control of the courts: R v Comptroller of Patents (1899).
  4. 1 2 3 Vitoria, Mary, ed. (1899). Reports of patent, design, and trade mark cases. Vol. 16. United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell, Limited. p. 242, 527. ISBN   9781847033703.
  5. Griffith, W.D.; Holmes, C.A.; Archbold, J.F. (1867). The Law and Practice in Bankruptcy: With an Appendix of Statutes, Orders and Forms : in Two Volumes. Vol. 2. Sweet. p. 1070. ...but since the repeal of the 185th section of the Act of 1849, under which section Ex parte Tomlinson was decided,...
  6. 1 2 Roberts, James (1903). The Grant and Validity of British Patents for Inventions. E.P. Dutton. p. 112. LCCN   04014396.
  7. Great Britain. Courts (1899). The Law Times Reports: Containing All the Cases Argued and Determined in the House of Lords. Vol. 80. London: Law Times Office. p. 779. LCCN   2006217012.
  8. Great Britain. Patent Office (1959). Reports of Patent, Design, Trade Mark, and Other Cases. Vol. 48. Published at the Patent Office Sales Branch. p. XXIII-XXIV. LCCN   18021412.
  9. Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg The dictionary definition of fiat at Wiktionary
  10. Dickens, Bernard M. (1972). "The Attorney-General's Consent to Prosecutions". The Modern Law Review. 35 (4): 356. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb02353.x . JSTOR   1094435 . Retrieved 4 August 2022 via jstor.org.