Maclennan v. Risley Manufacturing Ltd.

Maclennan v. Risley Manufacturing Ltd.

The motion to strike was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action given the Defendant had filed a defence admitting manufacture and sale while denying infringement and distinguishing its products; the request for particulars was denied because the defence already contained specific distinctions and the Defendant failed to file supporting affidavit evidence; the Court granted bifurcation under Rule 107 and extended the scheduling dates to conserve resources.

Citation
2005 FC 363
Parties
Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim: CHARLES D. MACLENNAN et ÉQUIPEMENT QUADCO INC.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: RISLEY MANUFACTURING LTD.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Motion
Outcome
Motion denied in part and granted in part.
Legal Topics
Infringement, Particulars, Strike Out, Bifurcation, Damages
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Infringement Particulars Strike Out Bifurcation Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHARLES D. MACLENNAN et ÉQUIPEMENT QUADCO INC.

Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim

RISLEY MANUFACTURING LTD.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action and should be struck under Rule 221(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs should be compelled to serve further and better particulars
  3. 3 Whether issues of damages and profits should be bifurcated for a post-trial hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to strike was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action given the Defendant had filed a defence admitting manufacture and sale while denying infringement and distinguishing its products; the request for particulars was denied because the defence already contained specific distinctions and the Defendant failed to file supporting affidavit evidence; the Court granted bifurcation under Rule 107 and extended the scheduling dates to conserve resources.

Court Disposition

Motion denied in part and granted in part.

Orders

  • Motion to strike the Statement of Claim and paragraphs 12-16 dismissed
  • Order denying the request to compel further and better particulars