Grissinger v. Victor Talking Machine Co. of Canada Ltd.

Grissinger v. Victor Talking Machine Co. of Canada Ltd.

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove that claim 2 embodied the alleged improvements or utility; in view of prior art (Catucci and Gustafson) the court could not perceive any invention, so the patent could not be sustained.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1931] SCR 144
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Grissinger; Respondent / Defendant: Victor Talking Machine Co. of Canada Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 1930
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (judgment Below Dismissed Plaintiff's Action)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Infringement, Novelty, Anticipation, Utility, Claim Construction, Inventive Step
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Patent Law Infringement Novelty Anticipation Utility Claim Construction Inventive Step

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grissinger

Appellant / Plaintiff

Victor Talking Machine Co. of Canada Ltd.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (judgment Below Dismissed Plaintiff's Action)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant infringed the patent claims (claim 2)
  2. 2 Whether the claimed device provided the alleged improvement and utility alleged by the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether prior art (Catucci and Gustafson) anticipated or negated any inventive contribution by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove that claim 2 embodied the alleged improvements or utility; in view of prior art (Catucci and Gustafson) the court could not perceive any invention, so the patent could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.