Canadian Raybestos Co., Ltd. v. Brake Service Corp., Ltd.

Canadian Raybestos Co., Ltd. v. Brake Service Corp., Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed because the Exchequer Court correctly found that Cady's machine, completed in 1918, anticipated McBride's patent and, alternatively, that McBride's disclosure lacked patentable invention as it merely employed known devices for a new material.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1928] SCR 61
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Canadian Raybestos Co., Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Brake Service Corp., Ltd.; Inventor: McBride
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 1927
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Anticipation, Patent Validity, Lack of Invention, Obviousness
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Anticipation Patent Validity Lack of Invention Obviousness

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Raybestos Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Brake Service Corp., Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

McBride

Inventor

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cady anticipated McBride's patent by prior completion of the same machine
  2. 2 Whether McBride's patent disclosed patentable invention or merely applied known devices to a new material
  3. 3 Whether the Exchequer Court's factual findings should stand

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Exchequer Court correctly found that Cady's machine, completed in 1918, anticipated McBride's patent and, alternatively, that McBride's disclosure lacked patentable invention as it merely employed known devices for a new material.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent