| Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling |
20 Jan 1773
|
Patent, Privilege |
Roebuck and Garbet, pursuers, claimed that they obtained a patent in 1771 for a process that produced sulfuric acid in vessels of lead, instead of in vessels of glass. The patent allegedly gave Roebuck and Garbet the exclusive privilege of using this process in Great Britain for fourteen years. Roebuck and Garbet claimed that William and Andrew Stirling were constructing buildings in Glasgow for the purpose of using Roebuck and Garbet's patented process. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a bill of suspension, but Lord Hailes found no patent transgression in the construction of the buildings. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a second bill of suspension, but the court did not prohibit the Stirlings from producing sulfuric acid in vessels of lead while the case was pending. Because their patent only lasts fourteen years, Roebuck and Garbet sought to stop the Stirlings' activity immediately. They argued that the continued activity of the Stirlings causes Roebuck and Garbet material loss and rendered their patent ineffective. |
| Incorporation of Goldsmiths v. Cunningham, White, Marshall and Sons |
10 Feb 1802
|
Statute, Privilege, Corporation, Disuse |
The Incorporation of Goldsmiths brought a claim against jewelers and metal workers who were not part of their incorporation for selling jewelry and metal works. The Incorporation of Goldsmiths argued that Parliament had conferred exclusive privileges to the incorporated goldsmiths to search for, manufacture, and sell metal works, and that the defendants had been doing the same illegally since they were not properly incorporated. The non-incorporated defendants argued that after a certain practice has been maintained for a substantial time, i.e. their selling metal works despite their non-incorporated status, the statute conferring the privileges falls into disuse and becomes moot. |
