Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd et al.

Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd et al.

The appellant's patent was invalid because the Fontaine French patent (filed 14 Nov 1923, granted 5 Mar 1924) disclosed all essential features of the claimed locking device more than two years before the Canadian application, and the differences were mere variations of detail; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1933] SCR 377
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Lightning Fastener Company, Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Colonial Fastener Company, Limited; Respondent / Defendant: G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 1933
Procedural Posture
Patent / Intellectual Property / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent declared invalid; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Invalidity, Prior Disclosure, Anticipation, Infringement, Claim Construction
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Invalidity Prior Disclosure Anticipation Infringement 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lightning Fastener Company, Limited

Appellant / Plaintiff

Colonial Fastener Company, Limited

Respondent / Defendant

G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent / Intellectual Property / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether patent No. 288925 was invalid for anticipation by prior French disclosure (Fontaine) more than two years before the Canadian application
  2. 2 Whether differences between the appellant's claims and prior art (hole vs recess; fixed vs travelling pull; position of lugs) were substantive or mere variations of detail
  3. 3 Whether a posterior infringing device, if shown, is dispositive when antecedent prior art exists

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's patent was invalid because the Fontaine French patent (filed 14 Nov 1923, granted 5 Mar 1924) disclosed all essential features of the claimed locking device more than two years before the Canadian application, and the differences were mere variations of detail; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent declared invalid; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Patent No. 288925 declared invalid