Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. Comer

Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. Comer

All claims of the patent expressly required a tapered plug valve and the respondent used a cylindrical plug valve operating on a different principle; because the patentee was limited to the precise mechanism claimed, there was no infringement.

Citation
[1943] SCR 54
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Merco Nordstrom Valve Company; Plaintiff/appellant: Peacock Brothers Limited; Defendant/respondent: J. F. Comer
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 1943
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Infringement, Patent Claim Construction, Equivalents Doctrine, Validity Lack of Invention
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Infringement Patent Claim Construction Equivalents Doctrine Validity Lack of Invention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merco Nordstrom Valve Company

Plaintiff/appellant

Peacock Brothers Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

J. F. Comer

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's use of a cylindrical plug valve infringed patent claims limited to a tapered plug valve
  2. 2 Whether a patentee claiming an improved method of attaining an old object may rely on mechanical equivalents beyond the particular mode described
  3. 3 Whether the patent was invalid for want of invention (not decided by this Court)

Ratio Decidendi

All claims of the patent expressly required a tapered plug valve and the respondent used a cylindrical plug valve operating on a different principle; because the patentee was limited to the precise mechanism claimed, there was no infringement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs