Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
Judge | Muldoon, J. |
Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
Case Date | September 13, 1991 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD) |
Comstock Can. v. Electec Ltd. (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
MLB headnote and full text
Comstock Canada and Lundrigans-Comstock Limited (plaintiffs) v. Electec Limited and Gordon Douglas Hyde (defendants)
(T-1313-86)
Electec Limited and Gordon Douglas Hyde (plaintiffs) v. Comstock Canada and Lundrigans-Comstock Limited and 169718 Canada Ltd. (defendants)
(T-2216-87)
Indexed As: Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Muldoon, J.
September 13, 1991.
Summary:
Hyde was employed by Comstock, but also had his own company (Electec). Hyde allegedly invented a system for interconnecting light fixtures. Electec registered an industrial design. Comstock later patented the invention, claiming another employee was the inventor. Comstock brought an action challenging the industrial design registration. Electec and Hyde brought an action challenging the patent registration. The actions were tried together. The issues were (1) whether Hyde was the inventor and (2) if so, whether he invented the system within the scope of his employment with Comstock.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Comstock's action and allowed Electec's and Hyde's action. The court found Hyde to be the sole inventor and Electec the exclusive owner. The court gave Electec and Hyde the option of varying the patent or having it declared void and invalid.
Master and Servant - Topic 1346
Employment contract - Title to information and property developed by employee - Employer's property - What constitutes - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 11 ].
Patents of Invention - Topic 11
General - Ownership of invention - Where inventor an employee - Hyde, while a management employee of Comstock, made an invention on behalf of his own company (Electec) - The work was done on Comstock premises, but on Hyde's own time - Comstock knew of Electec's existence; there was no surreptitious invention - Hyde was not hired to invent, nor was his invention within the scope of employment or part of his daily duties - Comstock was not in the inventing business and there was no contractual term precluding Hyde from claiming ownership to his own invention - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that Hyde was the sole inventor and Electec was entitled to be the proprietor of the registered industrial design.
Patents of Invention - Topic 1510
Grounds of invalidity - Misnomer of inventor - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[t]he misnomer of the inventor(s) does not per se affect the validity of a patent. That is to say, the invention may be perfectly validly patentable, in any event. The erroneous identification of inventors during the process of obtaining a patent does not render the patent invalid in circumstances where, notwithstanding such misnomer, the rights of all inventors are held by the patentee to whom the patent was granted." - See paragraph 67.
Patents of Invention - Topic 3685
Infringement actions - Particulars - Date of invention - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[t]he date of discovery of an invention is the date at which the inventor can prove he first formulated, either in writing or orally, a description which affords the means of making that which is invented." - See paragraph 64.
Cases Noticed:
McCracken and Concrete Pipe Ltd. v. Watson, [1932] Ex. C.R. 83, refd to. [para. 60].
Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Yale Security (Canada) Inc. et al. (1987), 9 F.T.R. 58 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 61].
Clopay Corp. and Canadian General Tower Ltd. v. Metalix Ltd. (1980), 20 Fox P.C. 110 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].
Gerrard Wire Tying Machines Co. Ltd. v. Cary Manufacturing Co., [1926] Ex. C.R. 170 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].
Christiani & Neilsen v. Rice, [1930] S.C.R. 443, refd to. [para. 64].
Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitzpatrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. Ltd. (1987), 13 F.T.R. 16; 16 C.P.R.(3d) 207 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].
Adamson v. Kenworthy (1983), 49 R.P.C. 57, refd to. [para. 66].
DEC International Inc. v. Lacombe (A.L.) & Associates Ltd. and LaCombe (1989), 28 F.T.R. 304; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 193 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 67].
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bristol-Myers Canada Ltd. (1978), 39 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1979), 28 N.R. 273; 42 C.P.R.(2d) 33 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Ernest Scragg & Sons Ltd. v. Leesona Corp. (1964), 45 C.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 68].
Bloxam v. Elsee (1825), 1 Car. & P. 558; 6 B & C 169, refd to. [para. 69].
Piper v. Piper (1904), 3 O.W.R. 451 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
Willards Chocolates Ltd. v. Bardsley (1928), 35 O.W.N. 92 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 73].
Spiroll v. Putti (1975), 22 C.P.R.(2d) 261 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1976), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 761 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
Equator Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Re; Ex parte Pendlebury, [1926] 1 D.L.R. 1101 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
Devoe-Holbein Inc. v. Yam, 2 C.I.P.R. 229 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
Scapa Dryers (Canada) Ltd. v. Fardeau (1971), 1 C.P.R.(2d) 200, refd to. [para. 74].
W.J. Gage Ltd. v. Sugden (1967), 51 C.P.R. 259 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].
Worthington Pumping Engine Co. v. Moore (1903), 20 R.P.C. 41 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 76].
Edisonia Ltd. v. Forse (1908), 25 R.P.C. 546 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 76].
Mellor v. William Beardmore & Co. (1927), 44 R.P.C. 175 (Scot. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].
Vokes Ltd. v. Heather (1945), 62 R.P.C. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].
Charles Selz Limited's Application to the Controller Under s. 56 of the Patent Act, Re (1953), 71 R.P.C. 158, refd to. [para. 76].
Patchett v. Sterling Engineering Co. Ltd. (1955), 72 R.P.C. 50, refd to. [para. 76].
Anemostat (Scotland) Ltd. v. Michaelis, [1957] R.P.C. 167, refd to. [para. 80].
Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley et al., [1974] S.C.R. 592; 40 D.L.R.(3d) 371, dist. [para. 83].
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. et al. v. Binstead et al. (1983), 22 B.L.R. 255 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 83].
Stein Estate et al. v. Ship "Kathy K" et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 87].
N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 87].
Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 87].
Peso Silver Mines v. Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673; 58 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].
Statutes Noticed:
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 20 [para. 59].
Federal Court Rules, rule 337(2)(b) [para. 96].
Industrial Designs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-9, sect. 5.1, sect. 7(3) [para. 57].
Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 2 [para. 63]; sect. 27 [para. 64]; sect. 49, sect. 50 [para. 63]; sect. 52 [para. 61]; sect. 61 [para. 64].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 71].
Canadian Encyclopedia (1988), pp. 2010-2011 [para. 70].
Fox, Canadian Patent Law (4th Ed.), pp. 223-225 [para. 62]; 302-303 [para. 73].
Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed. 1977) [para. 71].
Counsel:
Robert H. Barrigar, Q.C., and Lynn Cassan, for Comstock Canada and Lundrigans-Comstock Ltd.;
J.Bruce Carr-Harris and David A. Aylen, for Electec Ltd. and Gordon Douglas Hyde.
Solicitors of Record:
Barrigar & Oyen, Ottawa, Ontario, for Comstock Canada and Lundrigans-Comstock Ltd.;
Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for Electec Ltd. and Gordon Douglas Hyde.
These actions were heard on December 4-8, 11-14 and 20, 1989, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on September 13, 1991.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weatherford Canada Ltd. et al. v. Corlac Inc. et al., (2011) 422 N.R. 49 (FCA)
...Industrial Products Ltd., [1979] 1 F.C. 310; 23 N.R. 100 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125]. Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2010), 375 F.T.R. 121; 88 C.P.R.(4t......
-
Table of Cases
...102, [1994] J.Q. no 259 (C.A.) .............................................................. 417 Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241, 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (T.D.) ........................................................................................... 71, 72 Condor v. Barr......
-
Table of Cases
......................................................................... 582 Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29, 45 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.) .............................................................. 364, 369, 560, 602 ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Fetherstonhaugh & Co., 2002 FCT......
-
671905 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Q'Max Solutions Inc., (2003) 305 N.R. 137 (FCA)
...Inc. et al. (1987), 9 F.T.R. 58; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 347 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34]. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Esso Petroleum Co. v. Southport Corp., [1956] A.C. 218 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35]. Ship Tordenskjo......
-
Weatherford Canada Ltd. et al. v. Corlac Inc. et al., (2011) 422 N.R. 49 (FCA)
...Industrial Products Ltd., [1979] 1 F.C. 310; 23 N.R. 100 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125]. Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2010), 375 F.T.R. 121; 88 C.P.R.(4t......
-
671905 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Q'Max Solutions Inc., (2003) 305 N.R. 137 (FCA)
...Inc. et al. (1987), 9 F.T.R. 58; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 347 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34]. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Esso Petroleum Co. v. Southport Corp., [1956] A.C. 218 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35]. Ship Tordenskjo......
-
Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., (1996) 113 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
...(1995), 188 N.R. 382; 63 C.P.R.(3d) 473 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 16]. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 17]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1991), ......
-
Brown et al. v. Canada et al., (2016) 481 N.R. 127 (FCA)
...rights; or, (ii) the employee was hired for the express purpose of inventing ( Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. , [1991] F.C.J. No. 987, 45 F.T.R. 241 (QL)). [35] However, in the context of a government employment relationship, such as the one at issue, Parliament specifically enacted the PS......
-
Untangling Patent Rights: When Employees And Contractors Invent
...https://www.robic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/068.120E-MBE-2010.pdf Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd., (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 Given that ownership and employment is a matter of property and civil right, this issue falls under l jurisdiction. Art. 2099 C.C.Q. The content of this article is int......
-
Table of Cases
...102, [1994] J.Q. no 259 (C.A.) .............................................................. 417 Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. (1991), 45 F.T.R. 241, 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29 (T.D.) ........................................................................................... 71, 72 Condor v. Barr......
-
Table of Cases
......................................................................... 582 Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. (3d) 29, 45 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.) .............................................................. 364, 369, 560, 602 ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Fetherstonhaugh & Co., 2002 FCT......
-
La titrisation de la propriete intellectuelle au Canada.
...474. (115) Voir Burke Sylva, supra note 3 aux pp. 200-202. (116) Voir Comstock Canada c. Elected Ltd. (1991), 38 C.P.R. ([3.sup.e]) 29, 45 F.T.R. 241 (C.F. [1.sup.re] inst.) ; Canada Plastic Containers Ltd. v. Farkas (1973), 12 C.P.R. ([2.sup.e]) 77 (H.C.J. (117) Voir A. Edward Aust et al.,......