Whirlpool Corp V Camco Inc
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc'',
000 Triple zero, Triple Zero, Zero Zero Zero, Triple 0, Triple-0, 000, or 0-0-0 may refer to: * 000 (emergency telephone number), the Australian emergency telephone number * "Triple Zero", a song by AFI (band), AFI from ''Shut Your Mouth and Open Your ...
2 S.C.R. 1067; 2000 SCC 67, is a leading
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...
decision on patent claim
construction Construction is a general term meaning the art and science to form objects, systems, or organizations,"Construction" def. 1.a. 1.b. and 1.c. ''Oxford English Dictionary'' Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0) Oxford University Press 2009 and com ...
and double patenting. 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'',
000 Triple zero, Triple Zero, Zero Zero Zero, Triple 0, Triple-0, 000, or 0-0-0 may refer to: * 000 (emergency telephone number), the Australian emergency telephone number * "Triple Zero", a song by AFI (band), AFI from ''Shut Your Mouth and Open Your ...
2 S.C.R. 1066, 2000 SCC 66, where the Court articulated the scope of protection provided by patents.


Background


Law

The Canadian patent system prohibits double patenting, acquiring two patents for the same invention. In order to determine whether an inventor has secured a double patent, courts compare the claims of the patents, searching for identical or conterminous claims. This process is known as "same invention" double patenting. Another type of double patenting, known as "obviousness" double patenting is in no way explained other than "when the second, later set of claims are not patently distinct from the claims of the earlier patent."


Facts

In the 1970s, Whirlpool developed a dual-action
washing machine A washing machine (laundry machine, clothes washer, washer, or simply wash) is a home appliance used to wash laundry. The term is mostly applied to machines that use water as opposed to dry cleaning (which uses alternative cleaning fluids and ...
agitator that utilized the bottom portion of the shaft for the usual oscillating motion but added an upper sleeve that was designed to work as an
auger Auger may refer to: Engineering * Wood auger, a drill for making holes in wood (or in the ground) ** Auger bit, a drill bit * Auger conveyor, a device for moving material by means of a rotating helical flighting * Auger (platform), the world's f ...
. The auger propelled water and clothing downwards toward the agitator's oscillating vanes so as to produce more uniform scrubbing. Whirlpool secured three Canadian patents for this work. In the first patent, the dual agitator was powered by a drive shaft. A second patent (known as the '803 patent) substituted a clutch mechanism for the drive shaft. Both patent specifications described the agitator's vanes as being rigid. Whirlpool's third patent, known as the '734 patent, featured flexible vanes on the lower agitator instead of rigid vanes.CIPO - Patent - 1,095,734 : The third patent
/ref>


The courts below

At trial in the Federal Court, the trial judge found that the '734 patent was a valid patent, and that it had been infringed by Camco. Camco appealed this ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal. Camco then appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...
.


See also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)


Notes


External links

Trial * Patents
Canadian Patent 1113156
Canadian patent case law Supreme Court of Canada cases 2000 in Canadian case law * {{Canada-law-stub