Northern Electric Co. Ltd. v. Brown's Theatres Ltd.

Northern Electric Co. Ltd. v. Brown's Theatres Ltd.

Both appeals were dismissed: the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that Wilson's patent involved patentable subject-matter and that the finding of substantial taking (infringement) should not be disturbed, and it affirmed the trial judge's dismissal of the action in respect of the Miller patent.

Citation
[1941] SCR 224
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant (in One Appeal) and Respondent (in the Other): Northern Electric Company, Limited; Plaintiff/appellant (in One Appeal) and Respondent (in the Other): Western Electric Company, Inc.; Defendant/respondent (in One Appeal) and Appellant (in the Other): Brown's Theatres Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1941
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court (patent Validity and Infringement) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Validity, Infringement, Subject Matter, Prior Art/anticipation, Claim Construction
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Validity Infringement Subject Matter Prior Art/anticipation Claim Construction

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

Parties

Northern Electric Company, Limited

Plaintiff/appellant (in One Appeal) and Respondent (in the Other)

Western Electric Company, Inc.

Plaintiff/appellant (in One Appeal) and Respondent (in the Other)

Brown's Theatres Limited

Defendant/respondent (in One Appeal) and Appellant (in the Other)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Exchequer Court (patent Validity and Infringement) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Wilson patent (Canadian patent 218,931) claimed patentable subject-matter
  2. 2 Whether Wilson patent was anticipated by prior art (Mathes, Langmuir)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant infringed Wilson patent

Ratio Decidendi

Both appeals were dismissed: the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that Wilson's patent involved patentable subject-matter and that the finding of substantial taking (infringement) should not be disturbed, and it affirmed the trial judge's dismissal of the action in respect of the Miller patent.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed with costs.