Pollard Banknote Limited v. BABN Technologies Corp.

Pollard Banknote Limited v. BABN Technologies Corp.

The Court held claims 1 and 2 of Canadian Patent No. 2,752,551 invalid: claim 1 was invalid for obviousness in view of the Camarato Application combined with the common general knowledge (use of 2D bar codes being within common general knowledge and the Camarato ticket disclosing covered authentication means), and claim 2 was invalid for ambiguity because it was incompatible with claim 1; accordingly SG's infringement counterclaim was dismissed.

Citation
2016 FC 883
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Pollard Banknote Limited; Defendant (predecessor): BABN Technologies Corp.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Scientific Games Products (Canada) ULC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Invalidity Challenge and Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment and Reasons (federal Court)
Outcome
Claims 1 and 2 of Canadian Patent No. 2,752,551 declared invalid and void; SG’s counterclaim for infringement dismissed; costs awarded to Pollard
Legal Topics
Claim Construction, Validity: Ambiguity, Overbreadth, Utility, Novelty / Anticipation, Obviousness, Infringement and Inducement, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Prosecution History / File Wrapper Issues
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Litigation Claim Construction Validity: Ambiguity, Overbreadth, Utility Novelty / Anticipation Obviousness Infringement and Inducement +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pollard Banknote Limited

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

BABN Technologies Corp.

Defendant (predecessor)

Scientific Games Products (Canada) ULC

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Invalidity Challenge and Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment and Reasons (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of person skilled in the art and claim construction of specified terms
  2. 2 Whether claims 1 and 2 are ambiguous under s.27(4) Patent Act
  3. 3 Whether claims are overbroad or lack utility under s.27(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held claims 1 and 2 of Canadian Patent No. 2,752,551 invalid: claim 1 was invalid for obviousness in view of the Camarato Application combined with the common general knowledge (use of 2D bar codes being within common general knowledge and the Camarato ticket disclosing covered authentication means), and claim 2 was invalid for ambiguity because it was incompatible with claim 1; accordingly SG's infringement counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 2 of Canadian Patent No. 2,752,551 declared invalid and void; SG’s counterclaim for infringement dismissed; costs awarded to Pollard

Orders

  • Claims 1 and 2 of Canadian Patent No. 2,752,551 are, and have always been, invalid, void and of no force or effect
  • The counterclaim by Scientific Games Products (Canada) ULC for infringement is dismissed