Impulse Downhole Solutions Ltd. v. Challenger Downhole Tools Inc.

Impulse Downhole Solutions Ltd. v. Challenger Downhole Tools Inc.

The case management judge did not err in finding the discovery question irrelevant because the law under Patent Act s.55(1) and binding authority permits a patentee to recover all damage flowing from infringement without requiring that the patentee itself sell the patented product; therefore the disclosure sought...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 FC 1916
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: IMPULSE DOWNHOLE SOLUTIONS LTD.; Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: IMPULSE DOWNHOLE TOOLS LTD.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: CHALLENGER DOWNHOLE TOOLS INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Appeal From Case Management Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery Relevance, Damages (lost Profits), Accounting of Profits, Convoyed Products
Source Language
english
Patent Law Civil Procedure Remedies Discovery Relevance Damages (lost Profits) Accounting of Profits Convoyed Products

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IMPULSE DOWNHOLE SOLUTIONS LTD.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

IMPULSE DOWNHOLE TOOLS LTD.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

CHALLENGER DOWNHOLE TOOLS INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Appeal From Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a discovery question requesting drawings showing the structure of accused products is relevant to issues in patent action
  2. 2 Whether a patentee must engage in sale of the patented product to recover damages for lost sales of products that may fall outside the patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

The case management judge did not err in finding the discovery question irrelevant because the law under Patent Act s.55(1) and binding authority permits a patentee to recover all damage flowing from infringement without requiring that the patentee itself sell the patented product; therefore the disclosure sought was not necessary to the legal issues and the refusal to answer was properly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the Plaintiffs in accordance with Column III of Tariff B, payable forthwith and in any event of the cause.