Kaufman v. Belding-Corticelli Ltd. et al.

Kaufman v. Belding-Corticelli Ltd. et al.

The patent was invalid because the claimed method was an analogous application of existing art and did not involve an inventive step that a person skilled in the art could not have made; statutory changes enacted after the patent's issue did not deprive the patentee of rights preserved by earlier provisions and the Interpretation Act, so s.61(1)(c) did not save the patent.

Citation
[1940] SCR 388
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Charles A. Kaufman; Plaintiffs/respondents: Belding-Corticelli Limited and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 1940
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; defendant's Canadian letters patent declared null and void
Legal Topics
Patent Invalidity, Analogous User Doctrine, Inventive Step (obviousness), Prior Art, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Invalidity Analogous User Doctrine Inventive Step (obviousness) Prior Art Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles A. Kaufman

Defendant/appellant

Belding-Corticelli Limited and Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application of the multiple carrier method to full-fashioned silk hosiery involved invention or was an analogous user within existing art
  2. 2 Whether the patent was invalid for lack of inventive step/obviousness in view of prior analogous uses
  3. 3 Whether section 61(1)(c) of the Patent Act 1935 applied to affect the patentee's rights given the dates of application and issue and intervening statutory amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was invalid because the claimed method was an analogous application of existing art and did not involve an inventive step that a person skilled in the art could not have made; statutory changes enacted after the patent's issue did not deprive the patentee of rights preserved by earlier provisions and the Interpretation Act, so s.61(1)(c) did not save the patent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; defendant's Canadian letters patent declared null and void

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
  • Letters patent No. 336,234 declared null and void and vacated and set aside (as previously declared by the Exchequer Court)