Skelding v. Daly

Skelding v. Daly

Provincial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court to entertain, as a defence in a patent infringement action, allegations that the patent or particular claims are void; they will not formally set aside the patent but may refuse the plaintiff the relief sought on the ground of invalidity. Applying that rule, the Court held the patent did not claim the asserted top-and-rear radiator combination and that the breather was anticipated and therefore claims 10 and 11 were invalid, so the infringement action failed.

Citation
[1941] SCR 184
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Louis Skelding; Defendant/respondent: F. T. Daly and Another
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 1940
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Jurisdiction of Courts, Infringement Defence, Impeachment of Patent
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Patent Validity Jurisdiction of Courts Infringement Defence Impeachment of Patent

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Skelding

Plaintiff/appellant

F. T. Daly and Another

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provincial courts have jurisdiction to entertain a defence alleging patent invalidity concurrently with the Exchequer Court of Canada
  2. 2 Whether the patent's claims covered the alleged combination of top and rear radiators
  3. 3 Whether the 'breather' described in claims 10 and 11 was anticipated and therefore invalid

Ratio Decidendi

Provincial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court to entertain, as a defence in a patent infringement action, allegations that the patent or particular claims are void; they will not formally set aside the patent but may refuse the plaintiff the relief sought on the ground of invalidity. Applying that rule, the Court held the patent did not claim the asserted top-and-rear radiator combination and that the breather was anticipated and therefore claims 10 and 11 were invalid, so the infringement action failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs