Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

The asserted claims of Canadian Patents 2,293,106, 2,485,813 and 2,411,964 were invalid for insufficiency/ inadequate disclosure under s.27(3) — the specifications failed to teach how to construct the alleged snowmobile inventions and relied on results/ranges without enabling the POSITA to put the inventions into practice; Canadian Patent 2,350,264 was not infringed because an essential claimed element (a walled engine cradle as claimed) was not present in the accused Arctic Cat snowmobiles; accordingly BRP's infringement action failed and the asserted claims were declared invalid or not infringed.

Citation
2017 FC 207
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Arctic Cat Inc.; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Arctic Cat Sales Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (patent Act) / Trial — Judgment Rendered (public Judgment and Reasons)
Outcome
Action dismissed; asserted claims of 106, 813 and 964 patents declared invalid and void for inadequate disclosure; Arctic Cat declared not to infringe asserted claims of 264 patent; Arctic Cat awarded costs; parties to make submissions on costs
Legal Topics
Infringement, Validity, Claim Construction, Anticipation, Obviousness, Adequacy of Disclosure / Sufficiency, Experimental Use / Prior Public Use, Remedies and Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Litigation Infringement Validity Claim Construction Anticipation Obviousness +3 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Arctic Cat Inc.

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Arctic Cat Sales Inc.

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (patent Act) / Trial — Judgment Rendered (public Judgment and Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Arctic Cat infringed asserted claims of Canadian Patents 2,293,106, 2,485,813, 2,411,964 and 2,350,264
  2. 2 Construction of claims and identity of person skilled in the art (POSITA)
  3. 3 Validity challenges: anticipation, obviousness, insufficiency/indefiniteness, material misrepresentation, prior public disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The asserted claims of Canadian Patents 2,293,106, 2,485,813 and 2,411,964 were invalid for insufficiency/ inadequate disclosure under s.27(3) — the specifications failed to teach how to construct the alleged snowmobile inventions and relied on results/ranges without enabling the POSITA to put the inventions into practice; Canadian Patent 2,350,264 was not infringed because an essential claimed element (a walled engine cradle as claimed) was not present in the accused Arctic Cat snowmobiles; accordingly BRP's infringement action failed and the asserted claims were declared invalid or not infringed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; asserted claims of 106, 813 and 964 patents declared invalid and void for inadequate disclosure; Arctic Cat declared not to infringe asserted claims of 264 patent; Arctic Cat awarded costs; parties to make submissions on costs

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Declaration that Arctic Cat does not infringe the asserted claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,350,264