Guettler v. Canadian International Paper Co.

Guettler v. Canadian International Paper Co.

The prior art disclosed the essential features claimed (rigid drum with longitudinal iron bars to lift and tumble logs and inwardly projecting rounded parts to avoid brooming); Guettler's arrangement was an adaptation of these known ideas and not an inventive step, and the shown commercial success did not overcome the lack of invention, therefore the patent is invalid.

Citation
[1928] SCR 438
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Guettler et al; Defendant/respondent: Canadian International Paper Company et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (validity Challenge) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Inventive Step/non Obviousness, Prior Art, Commercial Success as Evidence
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Inventive Step/non Obviousness Prior Art Commercial Success as Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guettler et al

Plaintiff/appellant

Canadian International Paper Company et al.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (validity Challenge) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subject matter of the patent discloses patentable invention
  2. 2 Whether prior patents and disclosures anticipate or render the claimed improvements obvious
  3. 3 What weight commercial success has in establishing inventiveness

Ratio Decidendi

The prior art disclosed the essential features claimed (rigid drum with longitudinal iron bars to lift and tumble logs and inwardly projecting rounded parts to avoid brooming); Guettler's arrangement was an adaptation of these known ideas and not an inventive step, and the shown commercial success did not overcome the lack of invention, therefore the patent is invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Maclean J., President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, affirmed