Case Comment

Letraset International Ltd. v.
Dymo Ltd.

citation(s): [1976] R.P.C. 65

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 75

As already explained above, this depends in this case on "inevitable result" and not on "explicit directions" in the anticipating document. Inevitable result itself can only be proved by the experiments. That the result must be inevitable in the sense of "necessarily always obtained" when the instructions of the prior document are carried out is clear as a matter of law - see for example per Sachs, L.J. in General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. (1972) R.P.C., 457 at 485 to 486. I am satisfied from the evidence here that it is not in fact the case that transfer material falling within the plaintiffs' claim will inevitably be obtained if the instructions, either of Wittgren or French Mac, are strictly followed."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page