Source: http://compilerpress.ca/Library/Klitzike%20Historical%20Background%20English%20Patent%20Law%20JPO%201959.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:28:07+00:00

Document:
The English were not the first to grant patents to inventors but they were the first to develop a lasting patent law. The patent system of the United States, originating at a time when the English law was in full flower, drew heavily from it and might never have come into being at all had the English law not been what it was in the eighteenth century. By this time the English lawyer had been victorious over the old monopoly abuses and had provided the fathers of our country with history from which considerable profit could be taken. Knowing the problems England had had it was an easy matter to avoid the pitfalls of a. monopoly system and create a body of law which began where the English law had left off.
Because we interpret and apply our patent law in the light of its history and because this history extends back to the beginning of the English law, there is value in the study of the early efforts of the English people. To fully know our patent law we must be familiar with its origin. The basic truths found by the English 400 years ago are still valid today and should continue to influence us in the interpretation and application of our law, even though it has become greatly refined and perfected.
It is, therefore, an object of this paper to illuminate some of these dusty truths from the Elizabethan era and it will seem that, although the years have clouded our view of them, they are substantially the same today as they were then.
* Associate Professor of Law, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas. Member of the New York Bar.
1. The Patent Act § 154, 66 Stat. 804 (1952), 35 U. S. C. § 154 (1952).
In England it is the “sole privilege” to “make, use; exercise and vend”  the invention for sixteen years.  The United States inventor receives a negative right, the English a positive one.
The ancient Greeks originated the term “monopoly.” It is derived from… (alone) and… (to sell) and was first used by Aristotle in 347 B. C.  For the purpose of this paper, a monopoly will mean a privilege consisting of the exclusive right to carry on a. particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the entire supply of a particular commodity.  We need deal here only with monopolies granted by the sovereign.
This paper will be concerned with the history of Letters Patent for inventions. It will be necessary, however, to consider monopoly grants other than those for inventions to fully understand what kind of a privilege the inventor received. A short summary of some of the more important early developments outside of England before the beginning of English patent law will be helpful.
2. 16 Halsbury's Statutory Instruments 121 (1953).
3. The seventeen year term in the United States dates from the date of issuance of the patent whereas the sixteen year term in Great Britain dates from the date of the filing of the complete specification.
4. Aristotle, Politics, bk. I, chap. XII, 48.
5. Black's Law Dictionary 1158 (4th ed. 1951).
6. Gomme, Patents of Invention 1 (1946).
7. Athenaeus, “The Deipnosophists,” 3 Bohn's Classical Library 835 (1854).
In A. D. 344 surveyors, geometers and architects occupied in dividing land and other property and who took measures, established boundaries, conducted or removed water were added to the above list. Code, X, LX I V, 2.
9. Code, IV. LIX, 1.
Abbot by Count William of Mortagne, authorizing him to establish windmills in a certain area. This is the first historical mention of windmills.  Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled around Europe and the Near East about 1160 to 1173, in his “Itinerary” reported that the King of Jerusalem granted annual fees to certain dyers and at that time dyeing consisted of trade secrets.  In 1236 the English King Henry III, who also ruled western France, confirmed a grant by the Mayor of Bordeaux to Bonafusus de Sancta Columbia under which he and his fellows alone in Bordeaux were permitted to make cloths of many colors after the manner of the Flemings, French and English for fifteen years, after which time anyone could make the cloths and Bonafusus was to have no advantage.  These early grants of privileges were not necessarily for inventions and did not all result in monopolies.
10. Frunkin, The Origin of Patents, 27 J. P. 0. S. 143 (1945).
12. Gornme, Patents of Invention 5-6 (1946).
Privileges of ten years are generally promised to the inventors of new arts and machines.
A substantial number of patents and copyrights were granted in Venice between 1500 and 1550. In 1568 Andrea Brugone obtained a. patent for printing in red and black and Francesco Zamberlin received a. patent in 1572 for certain types of mirrors. Many other grants were made and decrees were obtained enforcing them. As Venice declined in power skilled artisans and inventors, many of them expert glass makers, began migrating to other countries. Most of them went to France but, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 and the subsequent extreme religious intolerance, many of them migrated to England, Holland and Germany.  Being familiar with the Venetian patent system they were eager to obtain similar protection in their new homelands.
14. Prager, A History of Intellectual Property From 1545 to 1787, 26 J P. 0. S. 711 (1944).
18. Federico. Galileo's Patent. S J. P. 0. S. 576 (1926).
19. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 8.
20. Prager, op. cit. supra note 14, at 711-21.
22. Id. at 723. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 8.
23. Frunkin, op. cit. supra note 10, at 145.
24. Prager, op. cit. supra note 14, at 724.
25. Price, English Patents of Monopoly 5 (1913). 261bid.
With the diversification of trades in the twelfth century craft guilds began to be formed. A craft guild usually comprised all the artisans in a single branch of industry in a certain town. During the fourteenth century the cloth craft guilds became quite powerful by obtaining monopolies from the sovereign. Gradually the single merchant guild in a town was replaced by separate craft guilds for each of the various trades and handicrafts. The regulation of trade and prices became the power of these separate bodies and even wages and working conditions were regulated. By the fifteenth century every town having twenty men had a guild of its own.
27. Fox, Monopolies and Patents 32 (1947). Guilds were known to exist much earlier than this time. They were gradually degraded to state supervised agencies, complete state control being established in Alexandria by 100 B. C., in Constantinople by A. D. 800, in Venice by 1300 and in France by 1650. Prager, op. cit. supra note 14, at 713.
28. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 32.
29. Ibid. The League had been encouraged to settle in London by Henry III, who gave it many privileges so trade could be monopolized. These monopoly privileges were finally rescinded and given to English merchants. I Walker on Patents 6 (Deller ed. 1937).
30. 1 Robinson on Patents 4 (1890).
These guilds had monopolistic powers which were frequently abused. Like the merchant guilds, the craft guilds were still group monopolies. Private monopolies were still to come.  The guilds set the stage for the subsequent private monopoly patents. It was an easy step from the guild monopolies to the private monopolies, once the sovereign had fully established his power over the regulation of the trade. The early patents for invention, however, were often in conflict with the guild charters and had to be carefully drafted.  This is readily apparent from the Letters Patent of protection granted to foreign artisans by the Crown to induce them to come to England and practice their trades. We turn now to these early grants.
31. Fox. op. cit. supra note 27, at 35-8.
33. Gomme. op. cit. supra note 12, at 9-10.
35. Hulme, The History of the Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 12 L. Q. Rev. 141 (1896); Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 10; Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 43.
36. I Walker on Patents 3 (Deller ed. 1937).
37. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 46.
38. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 10.
39. Hamilton, Patents and Free Enterprise 11, T. N. E. C. Monograph No. 31 (1941).
was the beginning of a deliberate and vigorous policy to expand English industry which Edward III and his successors pursued with excellent results.
40. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 45.
41. 11 Edw. III, c. 5 (1337).
42. Fox, op. cit, supra note 35, at 48.
43. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 143.
44. Hindmarch, Patent Privileges for the Sole Use of Inventions 3 (1847).
A monopoly right, as opposed to a mere privilege, while also obtainable from the sovereign, was in derogation of the common right of freedom of trade and could not be granted without some consideration moving to the public. Even in the early days there were limits beyond which the sovereign could not tread and Parliament did not hesitate to insist upon observance of Chapter 41 of the Magna Carta, which declared that all merchant strangers in the realm should be allowed to buy and sell their goods by the old and rightful customs. In spite of this, royal grants of trade monopolies were so common that statutes were passed in 1336, 1352 and 1354 opposing such grants. In 1373 Edward III granted to John Peachie the sole importation of sweet wine into London and in 1377 Parliament declared this grant void. The Statute of Cloths of 1378 is illustrative of the problem at this time. It declared that all merchants could buy and sell without disturbance within the realm, regardless of any statutes, ordinances, charters, judgments, allowances, customs or usages to the contrary.  It thus appeared that the English people recognized the inherent dangers of monopolies immediately and took steps to eliminate them where trade was unduly hampered.
45. 2 Ric. II, st. 1, c. I (1378); Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 58-9.
46. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 44; Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 143.
invitation to a foreigner to come to England, similar to that extended to the German miners in 1324. The inventor was not granted a monopoly.
Allan Gomme, librarian of the British Patent Office until 1944, writes that the first English monopoly patent for invention was granted on April 3, 1449, to John of Utynam, who had returned to England from Flanders at the king's command. Because John's art of making colored glass had never been used in England and because John intended to instruct divers lieges of the king in many arts never used in the realm besides glass making, no one other than John was permitted to practice these arts for twenty years unless John consented there­to.  John may not have been the actual inventor of the process but to obtain a patent, this was unnecessary. Even today in England a valid patent can be issued to the proprietor of an invention who first introduces it into the realm, unlike the law of the United States, under which only first inventors can obtain valid patents.
Like earlier patentees, John of Utynam promised to instruct others in his art so that it could be developed in England when the grant expired. Unlike the others, however, John was granted a monopoly privilege under which he could exclude others from practicing his art for a period of time.  This is probably the first English patent for invention as it is known in England today.
47. Hamilton, op. cit. supra note 39, at 12; Hindmarch wrongly ascribes these alchemical patents to Edward III. Hindmarch, op. cit. supra note 44, at 3.
48. Hulme. op. cit. supra note 35, at 1434.
49. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 6.
The earlier grants were either for the introduction of industries well known in foreign countries and not necessarily invented by those artisans receiving the grants or were patents for inventions which did not grant monopolies, such as that to John of Shiedame for his newly invented method of making salt.
The English patent law made greater advances in the Tudor period than in any other period of history. It is true that it was the Statute of Monopolies in the Stuart era that limited monopoly grants and it is also true that the prerogative under which the sixteenth century monopolies were granted existed and was used long before that time. But the unprecedented and frequent uses to which Elizabeth put her prerogative were quite unlike any exercise of this sovereign power before. The sixteenth century could well be called the birth years of the English patent system.
51. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27; at 44; Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 143.
52. I Walker on Patents 3 (DeIler ed. 1937).
53. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 44-56.
54. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 8-9.
55. Davies, Further Light on the Case of Monopolies, 48 LI Q. Rev. 396 (1932); Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 60-1.
This was the first of the relatively numerous patent grants of the latter half of the sixteenth century. As had earlier patentees, Smyth promised to instruct others in his art so that the industry could be practiced widely when the grant expired. Note that this patent and the patent to John of Utynam a. hundred years earlier gave monopoly privileges for twenty years. Other patent privileges to individuals had not granted monopolies but only privileges to practice the art in England. Before this time the guilds had been the exclusive recipients of monopolies but now individual inventors and individuals who brought new industries from abroad were to receive monopoly privileges similar to those the guilds had en­joyed.
57. Fox, op: cit. supra note 27, at 61. 55 Gomme, op, cit. supra note 12, at 9. 59 I & 2 Phil. & Mary. c. 14 (1555).
The early Tudors practiced a perversion of the sovereign prerogative right unknown before them. Instead of granting open letters for the furtherance of national industry, the Crown began negotiating secretly to attract foreign artisans into its own service. German armorers, Italian shipwrights and glass makers, and French iron founders were brought to England in this manner. The precise relation between the Crown and these people is not known because these grants were not published and were not recorded on the Patent Rolls. The Italian glass makers came to England around 1550 under the protectorate of Somerset but were recalled by the Venetian State. The French iron founders successfully established the art of casting iron ordnance in the Weald district and soon afterwards the old bronze cannons became obsolete.  These practices contributed little to the development of the system of granting patents for inventions but they were some of the abuses to be remembered by the Parliaments of the early seventeenth century just before the Statute of Monopolies.
60. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 144-5; I Walker on Patents 3 (Dellered. 1937).
61. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 144.
before her combined. The subject matter of the Elizabethan grants., more than anything else, drew public notice to Elizabeth's patent policies and it is to this subject matter that we now turn our attention.
As the last of the Tudors acceded to the English throne the country was still far behind the Continent in industrial arts. Elizabeth tried desperately to develop industry by importing skilled artisans and encouraging enterprising men to undertake the risks of introducing new industries. She was not without success. For example, following the establishment of the French iron founders in the Weald district through secret negotiations, the pressing need for ordnance at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign was the cause of a number of patents issued at William Cecil's (Lord Burleigh) insistence and England's ordnance became the best in Europe by 1600.  Cecil was greatly desirous of making the realm self sufficient by developing industry of every kind. He accomplished this by granting patents of monopoly after careful inquiry into the novelty of the art and the possible public benefit. An attempt was made to introduce new industry without disturbing the old  and, whatever the abuses which resulted, at least the intentions behind the monopoly grants were good.
64. 1 Walker on Patents 6-7 (Deller ed. 1937).
65. Darcy v. Allen, 72 Eng. Rep. 830 (Moore 671), 74 Eng. Rep. 1131 (Noy 173), 11 Coke Rep. 86, 1 Abbott's Patent Cases 1 (King's Bench 1602).
66. 21 Jac. 1, c. 3 (1623).
68. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 148.
69. Fox, op. cit. supra note 27, at 27.
70. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12, at 9.
71. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 35, at 145.
72. Hulme, The History of the Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 12 L. Q. Rev. 141 (1896), continued at 16 L. Q. Rev. 44 (1900).
73. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 72.
74. Fox, Monopolies and Patents 62 (1947).
75. Hulme, The History of the Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 16 L. Q. Rev. 44 (1900). In the earlier half of this article Hulme states that the word “invenio” denotes primarily a physical act rather than a mental process. 12 L. Q. Rev. 141, at 151.
The Elizabethan grants may be divided into four main categories.  First, there were those industrial monopolies which were perfectly valid both at common law and after the Statute of Monopolies. Included here were grants for inventions originating in the minds of the inventor and those communicated to an Englishman from abroad. Other grants considered unobjectionable in Elizabeth's day were those for the importation into the realm of new products theretofore unknown and those for new trades.
A second group of grants, also occasioning little objection, included special licenses dispensing with statutes forbidding the import, export and transportation of certain commodities. These statutes were sometimes found impractical and, instead of repealing them, it was customary to grant special licenses for their evasion. These licenses were exclusive privileges but were not industrial monopolies. The 1456 grants of Henry VI for the making of a philosopher's stone were probably of this type.
A third category was comprised of those objectionable patents granting a power of supervision over a trade or industry. Among these were the grants for the supervision of inns and alehouses, because of which Mompesson and Michell were impeached in 1620-1. This type of grant was hated more than any other kind of monopoly and, had Elizabeth not made these, the Parliaments of James I probably would not have attacked monopolies so vigorously. Even in her patent grants for inventions and new industries, Elizabeth frequently granted the right of supervision, search, seizure and arrest of infringers. The energetic exercise of these rights by many patentees was extremely distasteful to the people.
76. The classification is that of Lipson but I have renumbered the categories. 3 Lipson, The Economic History of England 352-6 (1929). See also Davies, op. cit. supra note 55, at 397-8; Fox op. cit. supra note 74, at 62-5.
77. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 75, at 49. Sir John Pakington was the patentee of the first two reissues of this patent. He greatly abused the privilege in his use thereof.
78. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 64.
Council or in the Court of Star Chamber of Exchequer (infringers had no access to the common law courts) as the Court might regard infringement of the patent as evidencing disrespect for the Queen's authority. In the England of today, of course, the Crown no longer has authority over the validity of a patent. The Statute of Monopolies provides that the validity of all monopolies and patents is to be determined by the common law.  It should be pointed out, however, that Elizabeth gave up her right to determine the validity of her grants in her own courts in 1601, before the Case of Monopolies and long before the Statute of Monopolies.
Another difference between Elizabethan patent law and the present English system exists in the definition of novelty. Elizabeth desired to introduce those industries into the realm which would produce manufactures imported theretofore, such as alum, glass, soap, oils, malt, saltpeter, latten, etc. The petitioner had only to show that the industry had not been carried on within the realm within a reasonable period of time.  Today, however, the proof of a single public sale of an article before application for a patent can render a subsequent issued patent invalid. Similarly, a. printed publication of the invention can negate patentability.
An even more striking divergence between Elizabethan and modern patents is that most of the former gave the exclusive right of manufacture or importation and not the right of sale (although patentees could frequently prevent sales of infringing products). The consumer could thus purchase the commodity from anyone who could manufacture it under a different process. What is even more important, the consumer could buy it from an importer, since the patentee usually had no monopoly over importation.  Today a patentee obtains the sole privilege to vend the invention in addition to the manufacturing privilege.
79. 21 Jac. I, c. 3, § I I; Hulme, The History of the Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 12 L. Q. Rev. 141, at 151.
80. Hulme, op. cit. supra, note 79, at 153.
1. Native apprentices to be taught the art.
2. A disclosure of the secrets of the new art.
3. Working of the invention within a specified time.
4. Small reservations of rent to the Crown.
The latter three requirements were exacted only occasionally, while native apprentices were almost always forced on the patentee.
82. Hulme, On the Consideration of the Patent Grant, 13 L. Q. Rev. 313 (1897).
Elizabeth would frequently reserve a small rent to herself in the patent grant. In her 1588 grant to Richard Young to import, make and sell “le starche” for seven years an annual rent of £40 was reserved, although it is said that the real consideration for the grant was the suppression of the manufacturing of starch from grain, the patentee being confined to the production of starch from bran of wheat. Sir John Pakington was granted a reissue of this patent for eight years in 1594 and again in 1598. Sir John was typical of those patentees who abused their privileges at this time. He imprisoned at least one individual for reselling starch purchased under the patent and it is possible others suffered similarly.
83. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 79, at 145.
84. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 49.
85. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 79, at 145.
86. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 82, at 314.
An annual rent of £20 was reserved in the 1594 grant to Richard Drake for the production of aqua composita, aqua vitae and vinegar, for twenty-one years. Ale was made from these ingredients and the granting to Drake of the sole manufacture of the ale excited great public indignation. There were exaggerated recitals in the grant and it was grossly abused by the patentee.  The reservations of rent in these grants were but nominal. The main consideration for the grants was purportedly the introduction of new industries into the realm.
87. Hulme. The History of the Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 16 L. Q. Rev. 44, at 49 (1900).
89. Hulme. op. cit. supra note 82, at 313.
fication nor written disclosure was required in the vast majority of the Elizabethan grants. However, the patentees were obliged to teach the invention to native apprentices and therefore this was not a bone of contention among the vociferous common law enthusiasts of 1601 and 1623 because the public gained the benefit of the invention.
1. His invention was new and not stolen.
2. The inventions of other men were not to be prevented by him.
3. No one else had petitioned the king for the same invention.
first in English history and no others were submitted until that of Nasmyth a. hundred years later.  Today, of course, the provisional and complete specifications are an accepted part of British law.
Under the requirement of working, the patentee had to put the subject matter of his grant to use or sell the product thereof within a specified time or the grant would become void. This obligation was a logical outgrowth of the monopoly system. A monopoly to one individual should not be valid unless the public receives some con­sideration for staying out of the monopolized area. If the patentee is given the monopoly and then fails to pro­duce anything from which the public can ultimately gain some benefit, no consideration passes.
This principle was recognized at an early time. Bartolomeo Verde, who received a payment from the Venetian special privilege fund in 1332 to build a windmill,  had to refund the money at once if he did not complete his installation and make it work within six months.  Even the letters of protection granted to John Kempe and other alien artisans were granted on the express condition that they come to England and practice their trades.
94. Prager, A History of Intellectual Property From 1545 to 1787, 26 J, P. 0. S. 711 (1944).
95. Octrooibureau Los En Stigter, Manual for the Handling of Applications for Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Throughout the World, Great Britain, pp. 8-9 (2nd ed. 1936). Austria, Canada, Denmark, France and Sweden have compulsory licensing laws based on mere nonuse by the patentee. England, Germany have compulsory licensing based on specified abuses and as to certain classes of goods. Switzerland has both types of provisions. On compulsory licensing in general see Neumeyer, Compulsory Licensing of Patents Under Some Non-American Systems: Study No. 19 of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (1959).
In this country, except in certain instances in which the antitrust laws are violated, there is no compulsory li­censing or working. We believe the public receives ade­quate consideration for the patent grant in the published specification and drawings, which are dedicated to the public after the seventeen year term. The continuing adherence to the old law by the British is probably prim­arily caused by a reluctance to change rather than by a real need for such working. Even though inventors are not required to make use or sell their inventions in this country, there has been no evidence of deliberate re­straint of beneficial inventions from the public upon the patenting thereof. Great Britain and the other countries having compulsory working laws could probably do quite well without them.
96. Pox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 81.
98. HuIme, op. cit. supra note 87, at 52.
99. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 74.
100. Gomme, op. cit. supra note 12. at 24b.
101. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 74.
103. Davenant v. Hurdis, 72 Eng. Rep. 769 (Moore 567), 11. Coke Rep. 86 (King's Bench 1599).
pain of forfeiture of 10 shillings for failure to do so. The Court held the ordinance void since it was a monopoly. The view of the common law was that monopolies were void unless for the common good.
In 1598 Edward Darcy, a Groom of the Queen's Privy Chamber, had been granted a twenty-one year license for making and importing playing cards.  As late as 1603 actions against Darcy were prohibited  but in the Easter Term, 1602, Darcy made the disastrous mistake of bringing an action himself against an infringer  and the common law courts were afforded an opportunity they might not have had for some time. In holding for the defendant and declaring Lord Darcy's grant void, the court pointed out that Darcy had no skill in making cards and those subjects who had engaged in this trade before the grant were greatly damaged by it. It was definitely against the common law.  This is the widely discussed Case of Monopolies. It was the first complete judicial enunciation of the common law principles concerning monopolies. It added, however, nothing to the common law of monopolies because patents of this type had never been recognized as valid.
104. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 75-8.
105. Hulme, op. cit. supra note 87, at 51.
106. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 87.
107 Davies, op. cit. supra note 55, at 405.
108. The Case of Monopolies, Darcy v. Allen, 72 Eng. Rep. 830 (Moore 671), 74 Eng. Rep. 1131 (Noy 173), 11 Coke Rep. 86, 1 Abbott's Patent Cases 1 (King's Bench 1602).
In 1603 James I acceded to the English throne and in 1605 the Case of Penal Statutes  was decided. In this case the Judges of England said that grants of power to dispense with trade penal laws, such as those prohibiting certain types of exports, were void. Those grants which afforded grantees the right to break the law by issuing dispensations from penal laws upon receiving fees were also void. This case was only one more step in the limitation of the Crown's prerogative. These grants had always been in conflict with the laws of Parliament.
In 1607 the Case of Stannaries  and the Case of King's Prerogative in Saltpeter  were decided. In the former case the Star Chamber held that the King's preemption of tin in Cornwall, which James had given to Gilbert Brochouse for twenty-one years, was the King's to give, not by his prerogative 'but as his own. property, being ancient rent and inheritance due the King. In the Saltpeter case Parliament decided the King could grant licenses to certain men to dig for saltpeter on other men's lands because saltpeter was necessary for the production of gunpowder and this was needed for the defense of the realm. Parliament pointed out, however, that the licensees could not prevent a man from digging for saltpeter on his own land. These cases further defined the power of the Crown. The prerogative was becoming outlined in detail.
109. 7 Coke Rep. 36 (1605).
110. 12 Coke Rep. 9 (Star Chamber 1607).
111. 12 Coke Rep. 12 (Parliament 1607).
112. II Coke Rep. 88d. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 116, 336-7 . In 1639 James proclaimed other monopolies void. Fox, at 343.
113. 78 Eng. Rep. 147 (King's Bench 1615).
114. 78 Eng. Rep. at 148.
115. Thompson. Magna Carta - Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution-1300-1629, p. 301 (1943).
116. Fox, op. cit. supra note 74, at 97-8, 102.
119. 21 Jac. 1, c. 3.
120. Sir Edward Coke was very active in this area of the law at this time. He argued that monopolies had always been illegal in England under the Magna Carta of 1217. McKechnie, Magna Carta - A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 384 (1914). Coke's definition of a monopoly, however, did not include a patent for an invention. 3 Coke, Institutes 181 (1648). Most writers feel that, although the Statute of Monopolies was passed in 1624, the law which it declared came from Elizabeth. Jarratt, English Patent System, 26 J. P. 0. S. 761 (1944); Vojacek, Back to Queen Elizabeth, 32 J. P. 0. S. 629 (1950).
121. Edgeberry v. Stephens, 90 Eng. Rep. 1162 (Holt 475) (King's Bench 1691).
122. Gomme, Patent Practice in the Eighteenth Century, 19 J. P. 0. S. 256 (1937).
The English patent system owes much of its existence to the reign of Elizabeth. The history that preceded and followed her reign greatly contributed to the development of English patent law but it was Elizabeth who first recognized the great value of rewarding inventors and it was not until her reign that inventors were rewarded with patents regularly as a matter of course.
It is not intended to detract from the importance of the Case of Monopolies and the Statute of Monopolies but these were only inevitable results following the movement Elizabeth had begun. Once the idea of granting monopolies was accepted by the people and the Crown, it remained only for Parliament and the courts to channel this principle into the proper conduit. Overzealous to please her favorites, Elizabeth extended the theory of Acontius far beyond its reasonable bounds. Finding that her subjects would not tolerate this, she gradually withdrew her policies back within the limits of the common law, which limits had existed long before her reign.
Little did honest Jacobus Acontius realize what he was starting but thousands of inventors have since been indebted to him and to Elizabeth for their experimental steps 400 years ago. And, while our patent law may little resemble Elizabeth's, the foundations on which she built remain and are put to good use today.

References: § 154
 § 154
 v. 
 art.
2
 art.
3
 v. 
 v. 
 v.