Case Comment

Farwell, L.J. in
Re Andrews' Patent

citation(s): (1907), 24 R.P.C. 349

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 371:

"I pass on to the next conclusion, which is involved in the answer of the learned Judges to your Lordships' question, and that conclusion, I think is also of great importance to the law of patents, because it results from that opinion that an antecedent specification ought not to be held to be an anticipation of a subsequent discovery, unless you have ascertained that the antecedent specificaiton discloses a practicable mode of producing the result which is the effect of the subsequent discovery."

"... an invention which is practically useless is not an anticipation of a subsequent invention which achieves success, even although there is considerable similarity between the two."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page