Case Comment

American Arch v.
Canuck Supply

citation(s): [1924] 3 D.L.R. 567 (Que. Sup. Crt.) as per Duclos, J.

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 576:

"It is no answer to say that the Security Sectional Arch brick is not covered by a patent and that, therefore, the defendants are free to manufacture and sell the same.

There is in this case a knowing and purposeful manufacture of these bricks, because such bricks can serve one purpose and one purpose only, namely; to become part of the plaintiff's combination in the practice of the invention. The defendants acting in concert, one as a manufacturer and the other as a sale agent, have adopted, to the smallest detail, the method employed by the plaintiff in installing its fire arch; that they have copied its designs, its instructions, its shipping notice, requisition forms, contract forms, invoice forms, in short, they have jointly put in practice the invention covered by the patent in suit, in the only manner in which it could be put in practice and, as such, are infringers and are infringing the plaintiff's said Canada patent No. 121416. It was knowing, willful and predetermined scheme to infringe the plaintiff's said patent and to deprive it of its just reward."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page