Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pal Blade Corporation Ltd.

Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pal Blade Corporation Ltd.

Claims 1–3 are anticipated by prior art and invalid; claims 4–5 either are invalid if read broadly to cover any blade with a central non-circular hole and spaced corner apertures in view of prior disclosures, or, if confined to the precise mechanism and shapes described and shown in the specification and drawings,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1933] SCR 142
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Pal Blade Corporation Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 1933
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (safety Razor) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (judgment of Exchequer Court Affirmed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Claim Construction, Anticipation, Subordinate (appendant) Invention, Scope of Monopoly, Prior Art
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Claim Construction Anticipation Subordinate (appendant) Invention Scope of Monopoly Prior Art

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Pal Blade Corporation Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (safety Razor) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (judgment of Exchequer Court Affirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the blade claims (claims 1–5) constitute patentable subject-matter separate from the combination
  2. 2 Whether claims 1–3 are anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Proper construction and scope of claims 4 and 5 (non-circular central opening and spaced end openings)

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1–3 are anticipated by prior art and invalid; claims 4–5 either are invalid if read broadly to cover any blade with a central non-circular hole and spaced corner apertures in view of prior disclosures, or, if confined to the precise mechanism and shapes described and shown in the specification and drawings, the respondent’s blade (differing in structure and function) does not infringe; a patentee claiming a subordinate blade invention is confined to the precise mode described and cannot claim equivalents not specified. Consequently the Exchequer Court judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed

Orders

  • Action dismissed with costs
  • Appeal dismissed with costs