Bergeron v. De Kermor Electric Heating Co.

Bergeron v. De Kermor Electric Heating Co.

The trial judge erred in giving effect to a late objection to the appellant's status without first allowing him to produce the excluded patents as evidence to meet that objection, and on the facts the appellant had a sufficient interest under rule 16 (being engaged in design, manufacture and trade in the subject articles and having a bona fide patent application) to maintain the action; accordingly the Exchequer Court's dismissal was reversed and a new trial ordered.

Citation
[1926] SCR 72
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Faul Bergeron; Respondent / Defendant: De Kermor Electric Heating Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1925
Procedural Posture
Patent Impeachment Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Interest to Sue, Patent Validity, Evidence Admissibility, Priority of Invention, Adjournment
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Interest to Sue Patent Validity Evidence Admissibility Priority of Invention +1 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faul Bergeron

Appellant / Plaintiff

De Kermor Electric Heating Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Impeachment Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was a "person interested" under Exchequer Court Rules, rule 16, at the relevant date to maintain an action to impeach patents
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge should have allowed appellant an opportunity to produce foreign patents to meet a late objection as to status
  3. 3 Whether a patent granted after commencement of the action confers standing to impeach another's patent

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in giving effect to a late objection to the appellant's status without first allowing him to produce the excluded patents as evidence to meet that objection, and on the facts the appellant had a sufficient interest under rule 16 (being engaged in design, manufacture and trade in the subject articles and having a bona fide patent application) to maintain the action; accordingly the Exchequer Court's dismissal was reversed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal forthwith