TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privy Council declares patent valid and infringed, remits case for injunction and damages. Appellants awarded costs.</h1> <h3>Pope Appliance Corporation Versus Spanish River Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.</h3> The Privy Council allowed the appeal, declaring the patent valid and infringed. The case was remitted to the Canadian Court for an injunction and to ... - Issues Involved:1. Want of novelty and no subject matter2. Anticipation3. Defense based on Canadian statutes4. Denial of infringementDetailed Analysis:1. Want of Novelty and No Subject MatterThe trial judge ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the patent lacked novelty and subject matter. The judgment was supported by the Supreme Court of Canada. The argument was that 'doctors' or scrapers and the use of an air blast to guide paper were already known, and thus, the patented invention did not require inventive ingenuity. However, the Privy Council disagreed, noting that the invention solved a long-standing problem of pinched fingers in the paper-making process, which had not been addressed for thirty-five years. The Privy Council emphasized that the invention, though seemingly simple, constituted a novel and practical solution, thus meeting the criteria for patentability.2. AnticipationThe respondents cited several prior patents as anticipations, arguing that these earlier inventions disclosed the same knowledge as the patent in question. The Privy Council examined these prior patents, including those by Imray, Smith, and Schulte, and concluded that none provided clear and unmistakable directions to achieve the same result as the patented invention. The Privy Council reiterated that anticipation must be judged by whether a person grappling with the problem would find the solution in the prior art. They found that the prior patents either did not work successfully or were more complicated and did not disclose the specific combination of elements that made the patented invention effective.3. Defense Based on Canadian StatutesThe respondents argued that the patent was invalid under Canadian legislation because the invention had been in public use before the patent application. The Privy Council examined Section 7 of the Patent Act, which states that an invention must not have been in public use or on sale with the inventor's consent for more than one year prior to the patent application in Canada. The only use proved was by the inventor himself in Maine, U.S. The Privy Council held that the statute's reference to public use pertains to use in Canada, not elsewhere. They found no defense under the statute, as the invention had not been publicly used in Canada before the patent application.4. Denial of InfringementThe respondents denied infringement, arguing that their apparatus did not direct the air jet straight against the upper roll but against the blade of the 'doctor.' However, the Privy Council found that the air jet, after impinging on the blade, was eventually diverted to the same place on the upper roll, achieving the same result. The Privy Council concluded that such an obvious mechanical equivalent could not escape the scope of the patent.Conclusion:The Privy Council advised that the appeal be allowed, declaring the patent valid and infringed. The case was remitted to the Canadian Court to grant an injunction and address damages and other related claims. The appellants were awarded costs in all proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
