Société des Usines Chimiques Rhone-Poulenc et al. v. Jules R. Gilbert Ltd. et al.

Société des Usines Chimiques Rhone-Poulenc et al. v. Jules R. Gilbert Ltd. et al.

Section 41(2) applies even where a patent claims multiple processes for producing the same substance; the statutory presumption that an identical substance was produced by the patented process can be relied on by a plaintiff who limits its action to one claimed process, and the trial judge erred in holding otherwise; the matter is remitted for determination of remaining defenses.

Citation
[1967] SCR 45
Parties
Plaintiffs Appellants: Société Des Usines Chimiques Rhone-Poulenc and Ciba, S.A.; Defendants Respondents: Jules R. Gilbert Limited et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 1966
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; Remitted to Exchequer Court for Further Consideration
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Exchequer Court dismissing the action set aside; case remitted to Exchequer Court for further consideration of remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Presumption Under S.41(2), Process Claims, Infringement, Patent Validity
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Presumption Under S.41(2) Process Claims Infringement Patent Validity

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

Parties

Société Des Usines Chimiques Rhone-Poulenc and Ciba, S.A.

Plaintiffs Appellants

Jules R. Gilbert Limited et al.

Defendants Respondents

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court; Remitted to Exchequer Court for Further Consideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.41(2) Patent Act presumption applies where a patent claims multiple processes for producing the same substance
  2. 2 Whether a plaintiff restricting an action to one claimed process must prove the substance was produced by that specific process when the patent claims multiple processes
  3. 3 Allocation of burden of proof when production process is unknown

Ratio Decidendi

Section 41(2) applies even where a patent claims multiple processes for producing the same substance; the statutory presumption that an identical substance was produced by the patented process can be relied on by a plaintiff who limits its action to one claimed process, and the trial judge erred in holding otherwise; the matter is remitted for determination of remaining defenses.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Exchequer Court dismissing the action set aside; case remitted to Exchequer Court for further consideration of remaining issues.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court dismissing the action set aside