The Copeland Chatterson Co. v.
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
"But it is not at all clear that in this Court there can be any question of contributory infringement. It depends perhaps on what is meant by that expression. The jurisdiction of the Court is statutory. It has no common law authority to grant a remedy to anyone for the invasion of his rights. And with respect to the infringement of a patent of invention the jurisdiction is given in cases in which a remedy is sought respecting such infringement. If the act complained of as a contributory infringement is in fact an infringement, well and good. The Court has jurisdiction by introducing a term that is not to be found in the statute. The question is: Did the Guertins, in what they did, infringe the plaintiffs' patent? It is a question of infringement, not a question of contributing to an infringement by some act that falls short of being an infringement." Copeland-Chatterson v. Hatton, supra, per Burbidge, J.
"And it does not appear to me to be going too far to hold that any invasion of violation of that right [the right of a patentee under grants made by Canadian letter patent] is an infringement of the patent... in short does not one who knowingly and for his own ends and benefit and to the damage to the patentee induces or procures another to infringe a patent himself the patent? It seems to me on principle that it comes to that."
At p. 246-247
"They may have thought that the claims the plaintiffs were setting up could not be sustained, and if so they had a right to resist them and to indemnify Hatton. Townsend v. Haworth (1) and Plating Company v. Farquharson (2). But they knew of the patent and of the plaintiffs' claims and they took their chances. If it had turned out that Hatton had not infringed the patent by using their sheets no wrong would have been liable. But we have seen that what Hatton did was actionable, and it seems very clear that he was induced to commit the wrong by the defendants Guertins, and that they did this for their own ends and benefit and to the detriment of the plaintiffs, knowing very well at the same time what they were doing and the chances they were taking. That, it seems to me is sufficient in respect to knowledge. I think the first of the two questions in respect of knowledge. I think the first of the two questions proposed, namely, whether or not what the defendants the Guertins did, in inducing or procuring Hatton to infringe the plaintiffs' patent, is actionable or not should be answered in the affirmative.
Under the grant made by Canadian letters patent the patentee and his legal representatives and assigns acquire and liberty of making, constructing and using and vending to others to be used, in Canada, the invention covered by the patent. And it does not appear to me to be going too far to hold that any invasion or violation of that right is infringement of the patent. But is not that the right which one invades who knowingly and for his own ends induces or procures another to violate or infringe it? And if so, may not the act of the procurer or inducer be with propriety termed an infringement of the patent? In short does not one who knowingly and for his own ends and benefit and to the damage of the patentee induces or procures another to infringe a patent himself infringe the patent? It seems to me on principle that it comes to that."
"...with respect to sheets adopted to use in the plaintiffs' binders they will not be restrained from making or selling them, but from procuring or inducing persons whom they know to have purchased one or more of the plaintiff binders on the conditions mentioned to purchase such sheets from themselves and to use them in such binders."
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index
JurisDiction Home Page