Consolidated Wafer Co. Ltd. v. International Cone Co. Ltd.

la premiere adjudication.

Nous croyons done que justice sera mieux rendue en adoptant la suggestion de M. le juge Rv A

Dorion que le dossier soit retourn6 A la Cour Sup6rieure pour y

Rinfret J. faire 6tablir quel eft t6 le jugement de distribution du montant de 'enchire de Chauret.

S'il est alors d6montr6 que la cr6ance de $5,000 efit 6t6 colloqu6e en entier, I'intimbe devra tre d6bout6e de son action. Dans le cas contraire, 'action devra 6tre maintenue jusqu'd, concurrence de toute partie de la cr~ance de $5,000 qui n'efit pas 6t6 colloqu6e sur le jugement de distribution.

Les frais de l'action en Cour Sup6rieure devront suivre le sort de Ila cause. Mais i'appelant r6ussit sur les questions qui ont 6t6 d6battues devant nous, et il a droit a ses frais tant devant cette cour que devant la Cour du Bane du Roi.

J.-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Exchequer Court allowing an appeal taken by the present respondent from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents. The respondent, by a petition presented to the Commissioner, asked for the issue of a compulsory license under s. 40 of The Patent Act (13-14 Geo. V, ch. 23) in respect of the appellant's patent, no. 145,379, for alleged new and useful improvements in " automatic pastry making machines." The petition was dismissed by the Commissioner, but, on appeal, was granted by the Exchequer Court. The appellant, among othcr grounds of appeal, contended before this court that the respondent had not made out a case for relief under the proper construction of s. 40. I do not propose however to pass on this contention, for the reason that the appellant did not take that position before the learned Commissioner. On the contrary, at the very opening of the case, counsel for the appellant said:- The learned counsel also stated to the Commissioner:- Under these circumstances, any question as to the proper construction of s. 40 is eliminated, and we do not have to determine the meaning of the words " the reasonable requirements of the public ", or whether the requirements of a particular individual or of a particular trade come within the purview of the section.

The respondent, in view of the narrowing down of the issue to a mere question of what under the circumstances was " a reasonable price" or "reasonable terms" for the sale of the patented article or for a license for the use of the invention, was not called upon to adduce evidence to show that " the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention " had not been satisfied.

On the issue thus narrowed down, I would not disturb the decision of the learned judge of the Exchequer Court.