The appellants appealed a decision declaring that the respondent was not obligated to continue paying a 1% royalty on the manufacture and sale of products in jurisdictions where the underlying patents had expired.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation of the commercial contract, finding that royalties were only payable where patent protection existed.
The Court also rejected the appellants' arguments that post-agreement inventions were covered by the contract and that the respondent was estopped from ceasing payments due to past inadvertent overpayments.
The appeal was dismissed.
