York Urbanist

Curling Fallback

February 23rd, 2016

Corn broomAll this ‘broomgate’ has taken us back to our roots with Smithsonian now as the experts on the roaring sport. Our Bikini Curler, by Atlas Brush Ltd. came with an instruction manual authored by Ken Watson. Its round shape (patent pending), …”is the choice of Top Curlers throughout Canada”. “A nylon cord six inches from the bottom (concealed by the skirt) supplies the built-in ‘Spring-Steel whip’ – and a pleasing ice slap.”

Does that now become unauthorized under current rules, since it is an insert?  If so, I have a guarantee from Atlas Brush Ltd., Winnipeg and I’m going to return it for a refund.

And more information regarding a lawsuit from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4714/index.do

In 1955, one F.M. developed a new type of curling broom. In March 1958, a patent was issued to the inventor and was assigned to the plaintiff in January 1959. The latter, in March 1962, petitioned for a reissue of its patent, stating that it was deemed defective because of insufficient description or specification and because, in certain respects, the inventor had claimed more and, in others, less than he had the right to claim as new. On January 1963, a reissue patent was issued to the plaintiff pursuant to s. 50 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 203.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in respect of alleged infringement of these patents and sought a declaration that, as between the parties, the original patent was valid up to the date of the reissuance and that the latter was a valid patent. The defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that both patents were invalid. The action was dismissed by the trial judge and the declaration of invalidity was granted. The trial judge held that the broom in question was the embodiment of an invention of which F.M. was the inventor, but that the inventiveness was neither disclosed nor claimed in the original surrendered patent.

NOW, WHERE DO WE STAND ON CORN BROOMS?

Leave a Reply