Case Comment

Windsurfing International Inc. v.
Trilantic Corp .

citation(s): (1985) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 241 (F.C.A. per Urie J.A.)

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p. 254:

"Having concluded for the foregoing reasons that the Darby sailboard does not read on the appellants' claims, I am also bound to say that I do not think that without recourse to the disclosure, in the specification, can the description of the invention be ascertained. Its nature is not clear without reference to the description in the specification. That, however, is proper methodology. The claims provide enlightenment as to what the invention really is, and of course define its scope, but the disclosure describes it."

At p. 255: **

At p.268:

"On the record in this case, there cannot be said to have been a conspiracy to cause infringement. However, unlike the Saunders case, I think that the evidence as a whole lead irresistably to the inferences that the respondent knew of the existence of the appellants' patent and by its conduct induced and procured purchasers of its sailboards (albeit in kit form) to infringe that patent and, thereby itself infringes that valid patent."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page