General Foods, Ltd. v. Struthers Scientific and International Corp.

General Foods, Ltd. v. Struthers Scientific and International Corp.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal because the Exchequer Court judge erred by applying an automatic priority rule to grant the stay; the appellant had a lawful right to choose the Federal Court under s.62 and the stay could not be granted solely because the provincial actions were instituted earlier; judicial discretion must be exercised on all circumstances and here warranted reversal of the stay and dismissal of the respondent's motion.

Citation
[1974] SCR 98
Parties
Plaintiff, Appellant: General Foods, Limited; Defendant, Respondent: Struthers Scientific and International Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 1971
Procedural Posture
Patent Invalidity (impeachment) Action in Exchequer Court and Related Infringement Actions in Superior Court of Quebec / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment Granting a Stay
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court granting a stay in the second action reversed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Impeachment of Patent, Infringement Defence, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Federal Jurisdiction Procedural Law Stay of Proceedings Impeachment of Patent Infringement Defence Concurrent Jurisdiction +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Foods, Limited

Plaintiff, Appellant

Struthers Scientific and International Corporation

Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Invalidity (impeachment) Action in Exchequer Court and Related Infringement Actions in Superior Court of Quebec / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment Granting a Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exchequer Court actions for declarations of patent invalidity should be stayed pending provincial court infringement actions
  2. 2 Whether priority in institution of proceedings alone should determine whether a stay is granted
  3. 3 Whether impeachment under s.62 of the Patent Act is a distinct remedy justifying prosecution in the Federal Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal because the Exchequer Court judge erred by applying an automatic priority rule to grant the stay; the appellant had a lawful right to choose the Federal Court under s.62 and the stay could not be granted solely because the provincial actions were instituted earlier; judicial discretion must be exercised on all circumstances and here warranted reversal of the stay and dismissal of the respondent's motion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court granting a stay in the second action reversed

Orders

  • Respondent's motion to stay appellant's Exchequer Court action dismissed
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed