Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (CCM Hockey)

Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (CCM Hockey)

Claims 1 and 5 are invalid for obviousness because the inventive concept — converting a two‑piece quarter into a one‑piece quarter with foxing portions forming a heel pocket — would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art in light of common general knowledge and prior art; the correct construction of 'foxing portion' is a portion forming a curved heel pocket and Bauer's broader construction was rejected.

Citation
2020 FC 624
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Bauer Hockey Ltd.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Sport Maska Inc. doing business as CCM Hockey
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Action dismissed; defendant counterclaim allowed; claims 1 and 5 of Canadian patent no. 2,214,748 declared invalid
Legal Topics
Claims Construction, Anticipation (novelty), Obviousness, Prosecution History Admissibility, Infringement, Patent Validity
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Civil Litigation Claims Construction Anticipation (novelty) Obviousness Prosecution History Admissibility Infringement +1 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bauer Hockey Ltd.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Sport Maska Inc. doing business as CCM Hockey

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of 'foxing portion'
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'lasted skate boot'
  3. 3 Whether claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by prior art

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 5 are invalid for obviousness because the inventive concept — converting a two‑piece quarter into a one‑piece quarter with foxing portions forming a heel pocket — would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art in light of common general knowledge and prior art; the correct construction of 'foxing portion' is a portion forming a curved heel pocket and Bauer's broader construction was rejected.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; defendant counterclaim allowed; claims 1 and 5 of Canadian patent no. 2,214,748 declared invalid

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action dismissed.
  • Defendant's counterclaim allowed.