Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al.
Court headnote
Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1928-05-18 Report [1928] SCR 579 Judges Anglin, Francis Alexander; Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Smith, Robert On appeal from Canada Subjects Intellectual property Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al., [1928] S.C.R. 579 Date: 1928-05-18 The Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al 1928: May 18. Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Smith JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA Patent—Invalidity—No patentable invention—Golfing tees APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Audette J.)[1], dismissing its action for alleged infringement of its patent (for certain new and useful improvements in golfing tees) on the ground that the patent was invalid because of want of patentable invention. At the conclusion of the argument for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court orally delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs, on the ground that there was no patentable invention. Appeal dismissed with costs. R. S. Cassels K.C. for the appellant. Russel S. Smart K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1928] Ex. C.R. 13. …
Read full judgment
Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1928-05-18 Report [1928] SCR 579 Judges Anglin, Francis Alexander; Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Smith, Robert On appeal from Canada Subjects Intellectual property Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al., [1928] S.C.R. 579 Date: 1928-05-18 The Nieblo Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Reid et al 1928: May 18. Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Smith JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA Patent—Invalidity—No patentable invention—Golfing tees APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Audette J.)[1], dismissing its action for alleged infringement of its patent (for certain new and useful improvements in golfing tees) on the ground that the patent was invalid because of want of patentable invention. At the conclusion of the argument for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court orally delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs, on the ground that there was no patentable invention. Appeal dismissed with costs. R. S. Cassels K.C. for the appellant. Russel S. Smart K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1928] Ex. C.R. 13.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca