Traver Investments Inc. et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation et al.

Traver Investments Inc. et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation et al.

The trial judge's factual finding that Traver had not made the invention before May 3, 1950 was supported by the evidence and credibility assessments; Traver bore the onus of proving an earlier date and failed to do so on the balance of probabilities; therefore the appellant is not the first inventor and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1967] SCR 196
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Traver Investments Inc.; E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company; Defendants/respondents: Union Carbide Corporation; Celanese Corporation of America
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 1967
Procedural Posture
Patent Action Under Patent Act S.45(8) (conflicting Patent Applications) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment; Determination of Priority of Invention
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Priority of Invention, Date of Invention, Burden of Proof, Reduction to Practice, Corona Discharge Treatment of Polyethylene Film
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Priority of Invention Date of Invention Burden of Proof Reduction to Practice Corona Discharge Treatment of Polyethylene Film

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

Parties

Traver Investments Inc.; E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company

Plaintiffs/appellants

Union Carbide Corporation; Celanese Corporation of America

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Patent Action Under Patent Act S.45(8) (conflicting Patent Applications) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment; Determination of Priority of Invention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who first invented an apparatus and process for treating polyethylene film to render its surface ink-adherent
  2. 2 Whether Traver had reduced the invention to practice or disclosed a description by the asserted earlier date
  3. 3 Proper allocation of onus and standard of proof in priority disputes under the Patent Act

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's factual finding that Traver had not made the invention before May 3, 1950 was supported by the evidence and credibility assessments; Traver bore the onus of proving an earlier date and failed to do so on the balance of probabilities; therefore the appellant is not the first inventor and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs