Case Comment

Wilderman v.

citation(s): (1925), 42 R.P.C. 79 (per Tomlin, J.)

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p.88:

"It is urged on the Plaintiff's behalf that, once I am satisfied that there has been used in connection with the manufacture of an imported article, in however an unimportant or trivial respect, some apparatus or material in respect of which there is a subsisting patent, the importation of the article manufactured is necessarily an infringement. I do not think that the cases to which I have been referred compel me to accept so wide a proposition, and I do not accept it. I cannot think, for example, that the employment of a patented cutting blow-pipe or a patented hammer in the manufacture of some part of a locomotive would necessarily render the importation of the locomotive an infringement.

In my judgment, each case must be determined on its own merits by reference to the nature of the invention, and the extent to which its employment played a part in the production of the article, the importation of which is complained of. In the absence of any evidence of this character in the present case, and in the face of the language of the Specification itself, I do not think that the Plaintiff has proved, and I am not prepared to hold, that the device the subject-matter of the invention, was of such a character, or was so used, in relation to the manufacture of the caustic potash in question as to render the importation of such potash an infringement of the Patent."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page