Case Comment

CGE Co. Ltd. v.
Fada Radio Ltd.

citation(s): [1927] 2 D.L.R. 911

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 917:

"Any information as to the alleged invention given by any prior publication, must be for the purpose of practical utility, equal to that given by the subsequent patent. The latter invention must be described in the earlier publication that is held to anticipate it, in order to sustain the defence of anticipation. Where the question is solely one of prior publication, it is not enough to prove that an apparatus described in an earlier specification, could have been used to produce this or that result. It must also be shown that the specifications contain clear and unmistakable directions so to use it. It must be shown that the public have been so presented with the invention, that it is out of the power of any subsequent person to claim the invention as his own."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page