Dominion Chain Co. v. McKinnon Chain Co.

Dominion Chain Co. v. McKinnon Chain Co.

Majority held the patent void: the claims and specification showed the invention claimed was the entire reversible chain grip tread (not solely the right-angle feature), the elements were anticipated by prior patents and prior user (lack of novelty), and the importation of all component parts with only simple assembly in Canada did not satisfy s.38 manufacture requirement so the patent was avoided under s.38(b).

Citation
(1919) 58 SCR 121
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Dominion Chain Company; Respondent / Defendant: McKinnon Chain Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1919
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty and Anticipation, Manufacture Requirement Under Statute, Importation of Patented Invention, Claim Construction, Infringement
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Commercial Importation Law Patent Validity Novelty and Anticipation Manufacture Requirement Under Statute Importation of Patented Invention Claim Construction +1 more

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

Parties

Dominion Chain Company

Appellant / Plaintiff

McKinnon Chain Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Weed patent was novel or anticipated by prior patents/prior user
  2. 2 Whether the patent claimed an entire grip tread or only the right-angled cross-chain feature
  3. 3 Whether assembling imported component parts in Canada satisfied the manufacture requirement of s.38

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the patent void: the claims and specification showed the invention claimed was the entire reversible chain grip tread (not solely the right-angle feature), the elements were anticipated by prior patents and prior user (lack of novelty), and the importation of all component parts with only simple assembly in Canada did not satisfy s.38 manufacture requirement so the patent was avoided under s.38(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed

Orders

  • Patent declared void
  • Action for infringement dismissed