Power v. Griffin et al.

Power v. Griffin et al.

Because the patentee had not commenced and continuously carried on manufacture in Canada and the Commissioner had already lawfully exercised the single extension permitted, the subsequent extension was unauthorized and the patent lapsed (on 11 August as determined); readiness to license does not satisfy the manufacture requirement.

Citation
(1902) 33 SCR 39
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Michael Power; Respondent/plaintiff: Judson M. Griffin; Respondent/plaintiff: William E. Brinkerhoff
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1902
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (letters Patent) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court; Determination of Validity of Patent Extension and Remittance for Damages Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: the interlocutory restraining order set aside on ground that the patent had lapsed; matter remitted for determination of damages suffered up to the date the patent lapsed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Patent Term and Lapse, Manufacture Requirement, Extension of Term, Authority of Acting Deputy Commissioner, Functus Officio, Licensing Vs Manufacture
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Term and Lapse Manufacture Requirement Extension of Term Authority of Acting Deputy Commissioner Functus Officio Licensing Vs Manufacture

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Power

Appellant/defendant

Judson M. Griffin

Respondent/plaintiff

William E. Brinkerhoff

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (letters Patent) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court; Determination of Validity of Patent Extension and Remittance for Damages Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent lapsed for non-manufacture in Canada within two years
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner may lawfully grant more than one extension of the two-year period
  3. 3 Whether an Acting Deputy Commissioner had authority to grant the extension

Ratio Decidendi

Because the patentee had not commenced and continuously carried on manufacture in Canada and the Commissioner had already lawfully exercised the single extension permitted, the subsequent extension was unauthorized and the patent lapsed (on 11 August as determined); readiness to license does not satisfy the manufacture requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: the interlocutory restraining order set aside on ground that the patent had lapsed; matter remitted for determination of damages suffered up to the date the patent lapsed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Declare the respondents' letters patent to have lapsed on the 11th of August last.
  • No final order to be drawn up until final judgment on the whole case.