Laboratoire Pentagone Limitée c. Parke, Davis & Company

Laboratoire Pentagone Limitée c. Parke, Davis & Company

The extraction/isolation processes described in the patent constitute "chemical processes" in the usual meaning of that expression and therefore the plaintiff's claim to the substance prepared otherwise than by the patented processes (claim 7 of Canadian patent no. 479,333) is invalid under s.41(1) of the Patent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1968] RCS 307
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Laboratoire Pentagone Limitée; Respondent Plaintiff: Parke, Davis & Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 1968
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (antibiotic Chloramphenicol) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Quebec (appeal From Superior Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec reversed; judgment of the Superior Court reinstated insofar as it declared the patent claim invalid.
Legal Topics
Validity of Patent Claim, Infringement, Injunction, Meaning of "chemical Process", Inventorship, Patent Act S.41(1)
Source Language
french
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Validity of Patent Claim Infringement Injunction Meaning of "chemical Process" Inventorship +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Laboratoire Pentagone Limitée

Appellant Defendant

Parke, Davis & Company

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (antibiotic Chloramphenicol) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Quebec (appeal From Superior Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the isolation/extraction processes described are "chemical processes" within s.41(1) of the Patent Act making product claims invalid
  2. 2 Whether the named inventor was sole inventor (inventorship)

Ratio Decidendi

The extraction/isolation processes described in the patent constitute "chemical processes" in the usual meaning of that expression and therefore the plaintiff's claim to the substance prepared otherwise than by the patented processes (claim 7 of Canadian patent no. 479,333) is invalid under s.41(1) of the Patent Act; appeal allowed and Court of Appeal judgment reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec reversed; judgment of the Superior Court reinstated insofar as it declared the patent claim invalid.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal.
  • Reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Quebec.