Ball v. Crompton Corset Co., , 13 S.C.R. 469 (1887)

Linked as:

Extract

Ball v. Crompton Corset Co., , 13 S.C.R. 469 (1887)

Supreme Court of Canada

Ball v. Crompton Corset Co., 13 S.C.R. 469

Date: 1887-03-01

Thomas Hobart Ball, Herman Prenslauer and Simon Florsheim, Trading under the Style of "Chicago Corset Company." and Clinton Ethelbert Brush and Seely Benedict Brush, Trading under the Style of "Clinton E. Brush & Bro. (Plaintiffs). Appellants;

and

The Crompton Corset Company, Robert Simpson and G.W. Dunn & Co. (Defendants) Respondents.

1886: June 1, 2; 1887: March 1.

Present: Sir W.J. Ritchie C.J., and Strong, Fournier, Henry, and Gwynne JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Patent-Infringement of-Coiled wire springs in groups-Substituted for India-rubber-Mechanical equivalent-Want of invention.

In a suit for the infringement of a patent the alleged invention was the substitution in the manufacture of corsets of coiled wire springs, arranged in groups and in continuous lengths, for India-rubber springs previously so used. The advantage claimed by the substitution was that the metal was more durable, and was free from the inconvenience arising from the use of India-rubber caused by the heat from the wearer's body.

Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Fournier and Henry JJ. dissenting, that this was merely the substitution of one well known material, metal, for another equally well known material, India-rubber, to produce the same result on the same principle in a more agreeable and useful manner, or a mere mechanical equivalent for the use of India-rubber, and it was, consequently, void of invention and not the subject of a patent.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] affirming the judgment of Proudfoot J. in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice[2], by which the plaintiffs action was dismissed.

The action was for infringement by the defendants of a patent granted to the plaintiff Florsheim which had been assigned to the plaintiffs the Chicago Corset Company. The latter had granted to the plaintiffs Brush & Brother a licence for using the said patent in Canada.

The following was the invention as described in the letters patent:-

First. An elastic gore, gusset, or section for wearing apparel composed of a covering material having tubes, spiral metal springs inclosed by such tubes and not extending to the edges of the covering material and stayed at their ends by such covering material, and inelastic margins outside of the springs, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.

Second. In an elastic gore, gusset, or section of the character described, the springs arranged in groups and made of a continuous length of coiled wire, substantially as described and shown.

Third. In an elastic gore, gusset or section of the character described, metal fastenings extending across the ends of the tubes between the thicknesses of the covering material, substantially as described and shown.

The portion of the patent specially claimed as the patentee's invention was the metal springs arranged in groups and made of a continuous length of coiled wire. Previous to the patent metal springs had been used, but not in continuous lengths, and the manner in which they were used caused the covering material to become cut and frayed. There were also in previous use India-rubber springs in continuous lengths, but the India-rubber was an objectionable material, from liability to decay, and to contract when the body became heated, and so injure the health of the wearer.

By the statement of defence it was denied that Florsheim was the first and true inventor of the improvements described in the letters patent; that the alleged invention was new or useful, or that it was a patentable invention; and it was claimed that such alleged inventions were known and used by others previous to the issue of the patent, and that patents for the improvements were in existence in the United Kingdom and in the United States more than twelve months prior to Florsheim's application for a patent in Canada.

On the heari...

See the full content of this document