Dominion Fence Co. v. Clinton Wire Cloth Co.

Dominion Fence Co. v. Clinton Wire Cloth Co.

The patent was valid because it disclosed the first useful and successful machine for making electrically welded wire fabric as a novel combination of known elements; the defendants' machine, though differing in details, produced the same product by similar means and thus infringed (including by mechanical equivalents); the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 535
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Dominion Fence Co.; Plaintiff Respondent: The Clinton Wire Cloth Company and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 1907
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / On Appeal From the Exchequer Court of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed.
Legal Topics
Patent, Novelty, Infringement, Combination Patents, Mechanical Equivalents
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Novelty Infringement Combination Patents Mechanical Equivalents

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominion Fence Co.

Defendant Appellant

The Clinton Wire Cloth Company and Others

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a combination of known elements can be novel and patentable
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' patent was anticipated by prior products or patents
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' machine infringed the respondents' patent by implementing mechanical equivalents

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was valid because it disclosed the first useful and successful machine for making electrically welded wire fabric as a novel combination of known elements; the defendants' machine, though differing in details, produced the same product by similar means and thus infringed (including by mechanical equivalents); the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed.

Orders

  • Injunction restraining further infringement
  • Order for confiscation of the infringing machine used by appellants