Action for infringing the same patent. The plaintiffs, before delivery of a statement of defence, moved for an interlocutory injunction. The defendant company had not adopted the plaintiff's inclined side, but in lieu thereof made a curved side to reflect the light. Injunction granted with costs.

KAY, J.—The invention has been patented so long ago as 1871, and the validity of the patent has been established by the Court of Appeal.

It is clear the patentee does not confine himself to an exact prism "on the under," which I suppose means the under side * * * He does not confine himself to any particular angle, or to keeping one angle on the side which is to deflect the light; so that if he had chosen to make a dozen angles, or a hundred angles, that clearly would have been a construction within his patent. What the defendant has done is this: instead of making the deflecting or reflecting side a series of angles he has made it a curve; it is curved so as in fact to amount to an infinite number of small angles, so that the light which falls on any part of the curve is deflected in a different direction to that which falls on another part of the curve. That is nothing more than multiplying the facets, if one may use the expression, which the plaintiff under his patent might have used according to the very terms of his specification. It is not merely taking the idea which one knows alone would not do, but it is taking in fact the actual construction.