| Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hearing: December 14, 1999 Judgment: December 15, 2000 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Unanimous reason by: per Binnie J. |
|||||||||
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 2000 SCC 67, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on patents, namely claim construction and double patenting, whether a patent should be invalid because an invention was patented twice. The court adopted purposive construction as the means to construe patent claims. This judgement is to be read along with the related decision, Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1066, 2000 SCC 66. There the Court articulated the scope of protection provided by patents.
Contents |
In Canada the patent system prohibits two patents for the same invention. This is called double patenting. One type of double patenting is to compare the claims of the patents. Are they identical or conterminous? This is sometimes called “same invention” double patenting. There is a second type ofdouble patenting is sometimes called “obviousness” double patenting. Prior to this case it was unclear how to handle “obviousness” double patenting.
In the 1970s Whirlpool developed an inventive dual action agitator for clothes washing machines that utilized the bottom portion of the shaft for the usual oscillating motion back and forth but added an upper sleeve that was designed to work as a auger. The auger propelled water and clothing downwards onto the oscillating vanes of the lower agitator to produce more uniform scrubbing. This development work resulted in three Canadian patents. In the first patent (1,045,401) the dual agitator was powered by a drive shaft that was not at issue. A CIPO - Patent - 1,049,803 : The second patent. (“'803 patent”) substituted a clutch mechanism for the drive shaft. The trial judge concluded that both of the first and second patent required that the vanes on the lower agitator be rigid. Under a CIPO - Patent - 1,095,734 : The third patent (“'734 patent”) flexible vanes were substituted for rigid vanes. The trial judge held the '734 patent to be valid and infringed. This was appealled and dismissed and then further appealled. At the Sumpreme Court double patenting and claim construction were the issues.
| Canadian patent law |
|---|
| Patentability |
| Patentable subject-matter Novelty · Non-obviousness · Utility Sufficiency of disclosure Presumption of validity |
| Infringement |
| Patent infringement Defences and remedies |
| Legal texts |
| Patent Act Manual of Patent Office Practice (MOPOP) |
| Governmental organization |
| Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) |
| Categories |
| Canadian patent law Canadian patent case law |
Trial
Patents