You are here: Home > Research > AWF Taylerson
Written by: David Minshall
A British Patent grants a monopoly in respect of some invention; in the 19th century this typically lasted for 14 years. This meant that no one else could manufacture, use or sell the invention during the period of protection, without the patentee’s consent.
Such rights could be assigned to others by the patentee. The assignment could for example be absolute, dependent on the happening of a future event, or so phrased that the patent eventually re-vested in the patentee. Further, assignment might be of the whole patent rights, or relate to only part of the UK, or be of that part of the patent applicable to a particular subject. It was also possible for the patent to be rented to somebody for part of the period of monopoly, and this was known as ‘assignment by way of lease.’
The Patent Act of 1852 required the British Patent Office to keep a register of assignments, and all assignees of rights to or in a British patent were advised to have their interest entered in that register. The original Patent Office register had an alphabetic index of the surnames of all assignees who had thus recorded their interests. At some time in 1963, the Index prior to 1912 was destroyed, neither the Patent Office or Public Record Office having adequate space to retain the data. No further comment regarding the destruction of such records seems necessary.
Prior to the destruction of the papers (the late) A.W.F Taylerson (author of the three volume ‘The Revolver’ covering 1818-1914) had commenced extracting data in respect of British patents covering firearms and related inventions. His work had only covered two volumes, 1853-1866 and 1867-1871, before their loss.
Taylerson notes that the original records, covering patents in every field, were hand-written and sometimes difficult to read. Thankfully though, in 1967, he produced a typed manuscript of his records, a bound version of which has recently come to light and from which much of the foregoing is taken. Although he had only made extracts from the original Index relating to “British patents for firearms, cannon, ammunition of associated products and processes” this may be the best remaining source of information on the assignment of such patents.
The National Archives Catalogue does identify “Board of Trade: Specimens of Series of Documents Destroyed” (BT 900), which includes some index to books of assignees, etc. but Research Press is currently unaware of the scope of these records or their subject matter.
Taylerson’s records include the year of assignment, the surname or company name of assignees, a brief identification of the type of invention, the original patent number and year, the surname of the patentee, and a reference to the relevant page in the Register. The records cannot inform the enquirer the exact nature of the transaction, although it is possible to suggest this in respect of some assignments. Patent Agents, for example, would handle paper-work for an inventor until a patent was granted, then assign the patent to the original inventor. Similar cases occur where any patentee formed a limited liability company to develop his invention, and then assigned his own patent to that company (possibly in exchange for shares in it). Joseph Whitworth is an example of the latter case where patents were assigned to several of his companies, and in some cases shareholders.
One matter that remains unclear is whether any of the information recorded relates to agreements made by licence, rather than assignment. The two have fundamental legal difference, and Taylerson believed that this would have precluded entry of licences interests in this particular index. Fully understanding this aspect will require further research.
The document in its current form requires much laborious searching to understand interconnected entries – it will in due course need re-entry into a database format to facilitate reference and study.