Nike Bauer Hockey Inc. v. Nike International Limited

Nike Bauer Hockey Inc. v. Nike International Limited

The motion to amend was dismissed because, notwithstanding the liberal approach to amendments, allowing the addition of patent '748 at an advanced stage would cause irreparable prejudice in costs and delay, risk duplicative litigation with an existing Ontario action, and potentially constitute abuse of process; the interests of justice and effective case management required refusal of the amendment.

Citation
2008 FC 666
Parties
Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim: Nike Bauer Hockey Inc.; Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim: Nike International Limited; Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim: Easton Sports Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Counterclaim / Pre Trial Case Management; Motion to Amend Under Rule 75
Outcome
Defendants' motion to amend dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Double Patenting, Implied Undertaking, Abuse of Process, Case Management
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Double Patenting Implied Undertaking Abuse of Process Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nike Bauer Hockey Inc.

Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim

Nike International Limited

Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim

Easton Sports Canada Inc.

Defendant/defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Counterclaim / Pre Trial Case Management; Motion to Amend Under Rule 75

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend their statement of claim to add Patent No. 2,214,748 ('748) at an advanced stage of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether adding patent '748 would cause undue prejudice, delay and duplication of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether patent '748 is vulnerable to attack on grounds of double patenting under s.36(1) of the Patent Act and breach of the implied undertaking rule

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend was dismissed because, notwithstanding the liberal approach to amendments, allowing the addition of patent '748 at an advanced stage would cause irreparable prejudice in costs and delay, risk duplicative litigation with an existing Ontario action, and potentially constitute abuse of process; the interests of justice and effective case management required refusal of the amendment.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion to amend dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Defendants' motion to amend is dismissed with costs, the whole with the maximum costs listed in column III of the Rate; any other findings with respect to costs are denied
  • The pre-trial conference adjourned sine die shall proceed: parties must jointly complete and submit a trial chart by July 7, 2008, setting precise deadlines for filing senior experts' reports and replies so the chart can be sent to the judicial administrator to set trial times and dates