Case Comment

British Hartford-Fairmont Syndicate, Ltd. v.
Jackson Bros. (Knottingley), Ltd.

citation(s): 49 R.P.C. 495, per Romer J.

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p.556

"One may and one ought to refer to the body of the specification for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of words and phrases used in the claims, or for the purpose of resolving difficulties of construction occasioned by the claims when read by themselves. But where the construction of a claim when read by itself is plain, it is not, in my opinion, legitimate to diminish the ambit of the monopoly claimed merely because in the body of the specification the patentee has described his invention in more restricted terms than in the claim itself."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page