Wright & Carson v. Brake Service Ltd.

Wright & Carson v. Brake Service Ltd.

Section 7 of the Patent Act R.S.C. 1906 c.69 must be read literally: the requirement that an invention 'was not known or used by any other person before his invention thereof' is not limited to Canada; therefore prior use in another country (United States) by Cady before the appellants' invention anticipated the patent and rendered it void. The patent was issued under the 1906 Act and the 1923 Act did not revive the patent's validity.

Citation
[1926] SCR 434
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee: William A. Wright; Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee: Chalon E. Corson; Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee (assignee): Canadian Raybestos Company, Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Brake Service Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 1926
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment on Patent Validity and Infringement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Novelty, Anticipation, Prior Use (foreign), Interpretation of Patent Act, Retroactivity and Commencement of Statutes
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Statutory Interpretation Novelty Anticipation Prior Use (foreign) Interpretation of Patent Act Retroactivity and Commencement of Statutes

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William A. Wright

Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee

Chalon E. Corson

Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee

Canadian Raybestos Company, Limited

Appellant / Plaintiff / Patentee (assignee)

Brake Service Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment on Patent Validity and Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior knowledge or use of the alleged invention in a foreign country before the applicant's invention defeats a Canadian patent under s.7 R.S.C. 1906 c.69
  2. 2 Whether the Patent Act 1923 governed the patent rights though assented before patent but not yet in force
  3. 3 Whether the phrase 'not known or used by any other person' is limited to persons in Canada

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7 of the Patent Act R.S.C. 1906 c.69 must be read literally: the requirement that an invention 'was not known or used by any other person before his invention thereof' is not limited to Canada; therefore prior use in another country (United States) by Cady before the appellants' invention anticipated the patent and rendered it void. The patent was issued under the 1906 Act and the 1923 Act did not revive the patent's validity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs