Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd. Et al. v. Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd.

Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd. Et al. v. Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd.

In view of prior art the patent disclosed at most a particular method and mechanism for carrying and setting units on a tape; that limited subject matter was not practiced by appellants' materially different machine and was not novel enough to monopolize the general result, so there was no infringement and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1933] SCR 363
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Colonial Fastener Company, Limited; Appellant Defendant: G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Company; Respondent Plaintiff: Lightning Fastener Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 1933
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (machine and Method for Producing Fastener Stringers) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Novelty, Infringement, Prior Art, Claim Construction, Machine and Method Patents
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Patent Law Novelty Infringement Prior Art Claim Construction Machine and Method Patents

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colonial Fastener Company, Limited

Appellant Defendant

G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Company

Appellant Defendant

Lightning Fastener Company, Limited

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (machine and Method for Producing Fastener Stringers) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent disclosed a novel invention in view of prior art
  2. 2 Whether appellants' machine infringed the respondent's patent claims
  3. 3 Proper scope and construction of the asserted claims

Ratio Decidendi

In view of prior art the patent disclosed at most a particular method and mechanism for carrying and setting units on a tape; that limited subject matter was not practiced by appellants' materially different machine and was not novel enough to monopolize the general result, so there was no infringement and the Exchequer Court judgment must be reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Action dismissed with costs throughout.