THE SUITS IN CHANCERY RELATING TO BETTS’s CAPSULES. 
395 
We have no doubt the opinion of Mr. Eddis will be generally read with as 
much satisfaction as its perusal has afforded us. The points referred to in it 
are those we have relied upon as affording a justification of the course pur¬ 
sued in defending the suits. We have no wish to upset Mr. Betts’s patent, 
or in any way to contribute to such a result; on the contrary, we should be 
glad to see Mr. Betts, in a fair and legitimate way, reaping the reward to 
which he is entitled for his invention ; but if the suits now pending be pressed 
against the defendants, every available defence will, of course, be resorted to 
by counsel, and it appears that the validity of the patent is not unassailable. 
The strong and principal ground of defence, however, against the proceedings 
of the plaintiff appears to lie in the fact that Mr. Betts has no exclusive right 
to the manufacture of capsules, but to the manufacture of a certain metal which 
may be used for making capsules ; and that capsules made of this metal are un- 
distinguishable in appearance from those made of pure tin, which are not pro¬ 
tected by any patent. In cases of this description, where the patent is in¬ 
fringed, the remedy of the patentee should be against those who produce, and 
not against those who, without any guilty knowledge, use the article produced. 
Suppose, for instance, that some manufacturer were to make iron by Bessemer’s 
process without a licence, and that this were made into knives, scissors, and 
other articles, which could not be distinguished from articles made of ordinary 
iron, would it be right that retail dealers into whose hands such articles might 
pass in the course of business, or the public who might purchase them for use, 
should be indiscriminately proceeded against for infringement of Bessemer’s 
patent ? Yet such a proceeding would hardly differ from that which has been 
adopted by Mr. Betts against innocent dealers in articles to which capsules are 
attached, which, it is stated, have been made by Mr. Betts’s process, but not 
with his licence or authority. Capsules of pure tin are frequently used, and 
these are not secured by patent. Betts’s capsules consist externally of pure tin, 
and cannot be distinguished by appearance from the others. Mr. Betts gene¬ 
rally affixes his name to his capsules, but many capsules of his manufacture 
have been issued without any such distinguishing mark. On the Continent 
capsules are made by Mr. Betts’s process, the foreign patents having expired, 
and these also have usually no maker’s name attached to them. Many cap¬ 
suled articles are imported from abroad with capsules made of Betts’s metal, 
but not made by Mr. Betts or with his licence, and we believe he has the 
power, under his patent in this country, of preventing such importation. But 
there are also many capsuled articles imported from abroad with capsules made 
of pure tin, which are not an infringement, of this or any other patent, and 
over these Mr. Betts has no control. How, what we contend for is, that it lies 
with Mr. Betts to trace out and discover the manufacturers or importers of 
those capsules which he considers to be an infringement of his patent rights, and 
to stop the infringement at the fountain-head, instead of attacking retail 
dealers, who cannot be expected to have all the capsules attached to the articles 
sold by them submitted to such examination as would prove whether they be 
made of Betts’s metal or not, and if made of Betts’s metal, that they should 
ascertain whether it was made by Mr. Betts or under a license from him. Mr. 
Betts, however, &eeins determined to persist in the course he has adopted. The 
suits in Chancery against seventeen retail dealers are still proceeding, while 
heavy costs are accumulating; and we are informed upon undoubted authority 
that an agent of Mr. Betts has just finished a three months’ tour through the 
West of England, during which he has made a series of purchases of capsuled 
articles from druggists and others, against whom it is very probable that legal 
proceedings will be instituted. It will be seen that the case, as it stands, is one 
affecting the retail drug trade generally, and that no dealers in articles to which 
metallic capsules are attached can be considered safe from the vexatious proceed- 
2 d 2 
