Detroit Rubber Products, Inc. v. Republic Rubber Co.

Detroit Rubber Products, Inc. v. Republic Rubber Co.

The patent was invalid and unenforceable because it did not involve a sufficient inventive step and every feature of the claimed device had been anticipated by prior art; consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1928] SCR 578
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Detroit Rubber Products, Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Republic Rubber Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada Decision Dismissing Plaintiff's Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; the patent held invalid.
Legal Topics
Patent Invalidity, Lack of Invention, Anticipation, Novelty, Infringement
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Invalidity Lack of Invention Anticipation Novelty Infringement

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Detroit Rubber Products, Inc.

Plaintiff/appellant

Republic Rubber Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent disclosed a patentable invention sufficient to support a patent
  2. 2 Whether the claims were anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Whether the patent could be enforced against the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was invalid and unenforceable because it did not involve a sufficient inventive step and every feature of the claimed device had been anticipated by prior art; consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; the patent held invalid.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed.