March 20, 1930 (16th Parliament, 4th Session)

LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. RINFRET:

Not exactly. It deals
rather with a concrete case, but the judge refers very clearly to the proposed change. Perhaps I might read from the judgment as follows:
The application for a patent in the United States was made on the first May, 1922. The application for a Canadian patent was made on the 11th September, 1924, and refused by the Canadian Commissioner.
Under the provisions of section 7, set out above in full

That is in the judgment.
-"any person" who has invented anything as mentioned therein, has two years, within which to make his application for a patent under these circumstances and conditions as stated in the section.
By the first paragraph (1) of section 8- Which paragraph we now propose to repeal. -he is limited to one year, under the conditions mentioned in such paragraph, and the commissioner seems to have relied upon the same to refuse to entertain the application, because it was not presented within one year of the date of the American application.

Government Contracts

To put such a construction upon the first paragraph is erroneous; because this paragraph which deals with a case where a foreign patent has been taken out, does not apply to the present case where no foreign patent has been issued, but only when an application for the same has been made.
Indeed, that view is the only one that can be arrived at when we examine the natural and grammatical meaning of the wording of the section, which starts by saying: "Any
inventor who elects to obtain a patent." That is to say any inventor who chooses to obtain a foreign patent before obtaining a Canadian patent.
Later on the judge says;
However, in the present case, sections 7 and 8 appear to be mutually repugnant. It cannot be denied that the phraseology used could be improved; but that is only to declare, as I have had already occasion to say in another case that it is another illustration of the want of care that besets the modern method of drawing our statutes.
I was rather forced to read that. I do not intend to endorse it except as it applies to the particular case.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Full View