May 26 /56 – P. P.
DS/ I hve recd yr friendly lettr of the
I p.pose yt a sttmt of ye case shld be drawn up & appved of by both sides and that
it shall be submitted to ye opins of 2 ^impartial Counsel for their shall be taken upn it ye questn whether your process, if performed as described in ye specifn is or is not an infgt of my patt.
I do not p.pose that the opinn of Counsel shall be considd binding upon either party, who will remain at libty t take ye course they may be advised. Nevertheless if the Counsel agree in opinn & give their reasons for it in a way that indicates careful consideratn such opinns cannot fail to have great weight with both p.ties as it is prob. that a judicial decision wd be to ye same effect.PS I request an ansr on or before the 2 June, as I leave this on the 4th.
Greta Bank <1>
May 26, 1856
I have received your friendly letter <2> of the
I propose that a statement of the case <3> should be drawn up and approved of by both sides and that
it shall be submitted to the opinions of two impartial Counsel for their shall be taken upon it the question whether your process, if performed as described in the specification is or is not an infringement of my patent. <4>
I do not propose that the opinion of Counsel shall be considered binding upon either party, who will remain at liberty to take the course they may be advised. Nevertheless if the Counsel agree in opinion and give their reasons for it in a way that indicates careful consideration such opinions cannot fail to have great weight with both parties as it is probable that a judicial decision would be to the same effect.PS I request an answer on or before the second June, as I leave this on the fourth.
1. Greta Bank, Cumberland, near Keswick.
3. Viz. that both WHFT and Pretsch had taken out patents for photographic engraving using a similar process. WHFT considered that the patent infringed Part 1 of his own [see Doc. No: 07253] insofar as the first part of Pretsch’s process also used the combination of gelatine and potassium bichromate. Pretsch’s second part, however, involved electrotyping – i.e. ‘galvanography’ – whereas WHFT’s used etching. WHFT began legal action [see Doc. No: 07660] in 1856 but dropped it when the company failed [see Doc. No: 07465].
4. WHFT, Improvements in Photographic Engraving, November 1852.