394 THE SUITS IN CHANCERY RELATING TO BETTS’S CAPSULES. 
tinning tlie defence in the cases of those gentlemen who have instructed us; but 
as Pharmaceutical Chemists in general are, no doubt, more desirous of not being 
defendants than of being successfully defended, we again convey an expression 
of opinion that the only course free from the annoyance of suit is neither to 
keep in stock nor to take into stock any capsuled article. 
“ We mention that an instance recently came under our notice of a trades¬ 
man thinking himself safe where he removed capsules at the time of sale : such 
was inaccurate,—the receiving of capsuled articles into stock, or keeping articles 
with capsules on them, may be held to be using capsules. 
“We also mention having received positive information that an agent has 
recently travelled through the West of England with the object of purchasing 
capsuled articles. 
“ We are, dear Sir, yours truly, 
“Flux and Argles.” 
copy OPINION. 
“ JRe Betts Suits. 
“ I am of opinion that the plaintiff will not succeed in these suits against 
retail dealers. 
“ Of course he could not do so if he failed in establishing the validity of his 
patent, and the facts stated in the answers show that it has been by no means 
so clearly established, either at law or in equity, as is represented in the bills. 
But whether and to what extent the specification of Dobbs disclosed an in¬ 
vention which destroyed the novelty of Betts’s patent is a question of evidence 
and detail upon which I have at present very imperfect means of forming a con¬ 
clusion. 
“ It appears to me, however, that the nature of the invention or process 
claimed by the plaintiff will itself prevent a court of equity giving him the aid 
he asks as against retail dealers. It is not pretended that capsules composed 
entirely of tin are patented articles, and yet it is, I think, admitted by the 
plaintiff’s specification, and is, I understand, capable of distinct proof, that 
capsules made according to the process which his patent protects, present ex¬ 
ternally precisely the same appearance with, and are undistinguishable from, 
any other tin capsules. It follows, therefore, that the retailer of capsuled 
articles has no means of ascertaining whether the capsules are patented or not, 
except by pulling them to pieces and thereby destroying their use, so that an 
injunction to restrain the infringement is virtually an injunction to restrain the 
use of capsuled articles altogether. 
“ I think that a patentee, before he can claim the assistance of a court of 
equity to protect his patent, is bound to show that the patent is of such a 
nature as to give the party against whom the injunction is sought the means of 
knowing when the infringement is committed, and that where the patentee 
cannot do this, his patent would be held only to extend to the process of manu¬ 
facture, and not to the completed and undistinguishable product. 
“ This view is strengthened by the fact that the plaintiff appears not even to 
have adopted the precaution of invariably affixing to his capsules a distinctive 
mark, and thus every criterion of distinguishing the plaintiff’s article is wanting. 
“ Under these circumstances, the present suits seek a relief far more extensive 
than has ever been granted before by a court of equity, and which such a court 
would, in my opinion, be most unwilling to grant, where it can only protect a 
patented article by virtually annihilating an important branch of trade which 
includes many articles not patented at all. 
“A. S. Eddis. 
“ Lincoln’s Inn, January 9 , 1866 .” 
