Young and C. v The Hermand Oil Company, 1890
type: Technology - patent litigation
Young and C. v The Hermand Oil Company
Lord Kinnear to-day issued judgement in an action at the instance of William Young, consulting chemist, residing at Priorsford, Peebles, and George Thomas Beilby, chemist, residing at St Kitts, Slateford, against Hermand Oil Company, Limited, having registered office at 6 Shandwick Place, Edinburgh. The action was brought in the form of a claim for count and reckoning, but practically raised the question of validity of patents which pursuers hold relating to the distillation of shale. Pursuers sued for count and reckoning with reference to the quantity of shale distilled or manufactured by the defenders in apparatus or retorts made or worked according to the principles of the inventions set forth in the letters patent, or for the payment of £1000. Defenders, it was stated, held licenses from pursuers for the working of these patents, and the license requires that within ten days after 31st December in each year defender should give pursuers a statement in writing showing the number of apparatus worked, or capable of being worked, and the number of tons of shale with which the apparatus was charged. Between March, 1886, and May, 1889, defenders were required to pay a royalty of 1 ½ d per ton, and thereafter, by a new agreement, a royalty of 2d per ton. Pursuers further alleged that the annual statement was erroneous, in respect that defenders have a number of the patent retorts working besides the 120 mentioned in the statement, and upon the shale distilled on which they should have paid royalty. In reply defenders denied this allegation and pleaded, among other things, that pursuers’ statements were irrelevant, wanting in specification, and unfound in fact.
Proof, which lasted for six days, was led in July last, and his Lordship has now issued a formal interlocutor, in which he assoilzies the defenders, and finds them entitled to expenses.
Glasgow Herald, 23rd August 1890