Burt Business Forms Ltd. v. Autographic Register Systems Ltd.

Burt Business Forms Ltd. v. Autographic Register Systems Ltd.

The asserted patents were invalid or not infringed because the alleged invention was merely the application of known features (zigzag folded interleaved strips and form-registering apertures) to an analogous use without any inventive difficulty or ingenuity; prior art anticipated or rendered the combination obvious; and, in any event, manufacture and sale of the pad alone did not infringe the machine-plus-pad combination. Consequently the appeal fails.

Citation
[1933] SCR 230
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Burt Business Forms Ltd.; Respondent / Defendant: Autographic Register Systems Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 1933
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Novelty, Utility, Inventive Step, Anticipation, Infringement, Combination Patents, Commercial Success, Making or Selling Element of Combination
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Novelty Utility Inventive Step Anticipation Infringement Combination Patents +2 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burt Business Forms Ltd.

Appellant / Plaintiff

Autographic Register Systems Ltd.

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pad patents disclosed novel subject-matter or were anticipated by prior art
  2. 2 Whether the claimed combination involved an inventive step or was obvious
  3. 3 Whether commercial success establishes inventiveness

Ratio Decidendi

The asserted patents were invalid or not infringed because the alleged invention was merely the application of known features (zigzag folded interleaved strips and form-registering apertures) to an analogous use without any inventive difficulty or ingenuity; prior art anticipated or rendered the combination obvious; and, in any event, manufacture and sale of the pad alone did not infringe the machine-plus-pad combination. Consequently the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed