E. T. Wright, Ltd. v. The Adams & Westlake Co.

E. T. Wright, Ltd. v. The Adams & Westlake Co.

The patents were valid and infringed because the claimed combination exhibited invention, novelty, usefulness and commercial value; there was no evidence of importation or non-manufacture that would have invalidated the patents prior to the 1923 Act coming into force, and after that date questions of manufacture and importation fall to the Commissioner of Patents so the Exchequer Court had no jurisdiction in first instance to decide such issues under the 1923 Act; therefore the Exchequer Court judgment upholding validity and finding infringement is affirmed.

Citation
[1929] SCR 81
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: E. T. Wright, Limited; Respondent / Plaintiff: The Adams & Westlake Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: The Hiram L. Piper Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 1928
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Patent, Infringement, Manufacture and Importation Requirements, Statutory Transitional Provisions, Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Patents
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Procedure Validity of Patent Infringement Manufacture and Importation Requirements Statutory Transitional Provisions Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Patents

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. T. Wright, Limited

Appellant / Defendant

The Adams & Westlake Company

Respondent / Plaintiff

The Hiram L. Piper Company, Limited

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patented combination involved invention and novelty
  2. 2 Whether the patents were void for non-manufacture in Canada or for prohibited importation under R.S.C. 1906 c.69 s.38
  3. 3 Whether importation occurred between permitted deadlines and repeal

Ratio Decidendi

The patents were valid and infringed because the claimed combination exhibited invention, novelty, usefulness and commercial value; there was no evidence of importation or non-manufacture that would have invalidated the patents prior to the 1923 Act coming into force, and after that date questions of manufacture and importation fall to the Commissioner of Patents so the Exchequer Court had no jurisdiction in first instance to decide such issues under the 1923 Act; therefore the Exchequer Court judgment upholding validity and finding infringement is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court in favour of the respondents affirmed.