Noco Company, Inc. v. Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co., Ltd.

Noco Company, Inc. v. Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co., Ltd.

The motion for summary trial was dismissed because the Moving Defendants did not meet their burden to show the issues were suitable for summary adjudication: the record lacked sufficient, reliable evidence that the CC-209 PCB unambiguously defined a non-infringing class or that the T8 Pro was representative; significant credibility disputes and factual complexity could not be resolved fairly on a paper record; most of the Walker Reply was inadmissible reply evidence (except paragraph 50); Dr. Wood’s supplemental affidavit was admissible; accordingly it would be unjust to grant summary relief under Rule 216.

Citation
2023 FC 208
Parties
Plaintiff/ Defendant by Counterclaim: THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.; Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: GUANGZHOU UNIQUE ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: SUI CHENG LIMITED; Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: SHENZHEN GOOLOO E-COMMERCE CO., LTD.; Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: AUKEY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; Defendants: SHENZHEN YIKE ELECTRONICAS CO., LTD.; Defendants: SHENZHEN DINGJIANG TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; Defendants: SHENZHEN LIANKE ELECTRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; Defendants: SHENZHEN TOPDON ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.; Defendants: HUNAN LIANKE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CO., LTD.; Defendants: SUBSTANBO INNOVATIONS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; Defendants: SUBSTANBO INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Patent Infringement and Counterclaim for Declaration of Non Infringement (patent No. 2,916,782) / Motion for Summary Trial Under Rule 216 (decision on Admissibility of Expert Reply Evidence and Supplemental Affidavit; Summary Trial Motion Dismissed)
Outcome
Motion for summary trial dismissed; NOCO’s motion to strike parts of Dr. Walker’s reply granted in part; NOCO’s motion for leave to file Dr. Wood’s supplemental affidavit granted; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Infringement, Non Infringement Declaration, Claim Construction, Summary Trial, Admissibility of Reply Evidence, Expert Testimony, Scope of Declaratory Relief, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Evidence Infringement Non Infringement Declaration Claim Construction Summary Trial +4 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff/ Defendant by Counterclaim

GUANGZHOU UNIQUE ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

SUI CHENG LIMITED

Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

SHENZHEN GOOLOO E-COMMERCE CO., LTD.

Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

AUKEY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.

Defendants/ Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

SHENZHEN YIKE ELECTRONICAS CO., LTD.

Defendants

SHENZHEN DINGJIANG TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.

Defendants

SHENZHEN LIANKE ELECTRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

Defendants

SHENZHEN TOPDON ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.

Defendants

HUNAN LIANKE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CO., LTD.

Defendants

SUBSTANBO INNOVATIONS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants

SUBSTANBO INC.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Patent Infringement and Counterclaim for Declaration of Non Infringement (patent No. 2,916,782) / Motion for Summary Trial Under Rule 216 (decision on Admissibility of Expert Reply Evidence and Supplemental Affidavit; Summary Trial Motion Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary trial under Rule 216 was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the Moving Defendants established CC-209 Products are non-infringing as a class
  3. 3 Whether the T8 Pro is a representative product of CC-209 Products

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for summary trial was dismissed because the Moving Defendants did not meet their burden to show the issues were suitable for summary adjudication: the record lacked sufficient, reliable evidence that the CC-209 PCB unambiguously defined a non-infringing class or that the T8 Pro was representative; significant credibility disputes and factual complexity could not be resolved fairly on a paper record; most of the Walker Reply was inadmissible reply evidence (except paragraph 50); Dr. Wood’s supplemental affidavit was admissible; accordingly it would be unjust to grant summary relief under Rule 216.

Court Disposition

Motion for summary trial dismissed; NOCO’s motion to strike parts of Dr. Walker’s reply granted in part; NOCO’s motion for leave to file Dr. Wood’s supplemental affidavit granted; costs reserved

Orders

  • NOCO’s motion to strike parts of the Walker Reply granted in part; paragraphs 5-26, 27-30, 31-37, 49 and 51 (first sentence), 52-60 and corresponding exhibits K-M and O-R struck from the Walker Reply
  • NOCO’s motion for leave to file Dr. Wood’s supplemental affidavit is granted