Cincinnati Grinders (Inc.) v.
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
"This brings me to a point which was made by the defendants and seems to me to establish that in any case, apart from the question of invalidity, the plaintiffs cannot succeed in their infringement action. The infringement relief upon is the sale by the plaintiffs of a machine which is shown in Exhibit "P14", that Exhibit being a copy of the directions for setting up which are sent with the machine. The machine was sold with an angular work rest, but other types of work rest could be used in it. The directions are such that if they were followed, the work would be above centres. The plaintiffs' rights would however, in any view of them not be infringed by the sale of a machine except possibly a machine which could not be worked except in a manner which would infringe the Patent; this particular machine can obviously be worked with a rest other than an angle-topped rest and with the work piece otherwise than above centres. If the plaintiffs' patent is valid it might well be infringed by a person who used the defendants' machine with an angle-topped rest and the work above centres; but the user would have to be sued and not the present defendants."
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index
JurisDiction Home Page