Weatherford Canada Ltd. v. Corlac Inc.

Weatherford Canada Ltd. v. Corlac Inc.

The Court either lacked jurisdiction to grant the amendment sought or would refuse it on the merits because the injunction, as drafted, lawfully restrains infringing conduct generally (including unnamed products), the request amounted to a late collateral attack better suited to appeal or a separate proceeding, and the Defendants failed to justify amendment given procedural history; accordingly the motion was dismissed with costs.

Citation
2010 FC 667
Parties
Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): Weatherford Canada Ltd.; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): Weatherford Canada Partnership; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): Edward Grenke; Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim): Grenco Industries Ltd.; Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim): Corlac Inc.; Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim): National‑Oilwell Canada Ltd.; Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim): National Oilwell Incorporated
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Post‑trial Motion to Amend Injunction (urgent Motion)
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs forthwith.
Legal Topics
Injunction, Declaration of Non‑infringement, Functus Officio, Amendment of Court Order, Contempt
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Injunction Declaration of Non‑infringement Functus Officio Amendment of Court Order +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Weatherford Canada Ltd.

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

Weatherford Canada Partnership

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

Edward Grenke

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

Grenco Industries Ltd.

Plaintiff (defendants by Counterclaim)

Corlac Inc.

Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim)

National‑Oilwell Canada Ltd.

Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim)

National Oilwell Incorporated

Defendant (plaintiffs by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Post‑trial Motion to Amend Injunction (urgent Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to amend its injunction to exclude the SAI product line
  2. 2 Whether the SAI products fall within the scope of the injunction despite not being specifically named or introduced at trial
  3. 3 Whether the appropriate remedy is amendment of the order or appeal/separate proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The Court either lacked jurisdiction to grant the amendment sought or would refuse it on the merits because the injunction, as drafted, lawfully restrains infringing conduct generally (including unnamed products), the request amounted to a late collateral attack better suited to appeal or a separate proceeding, and the Defendants failed to justify amendment given procedural history; accordingly the motion was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs forthwith.

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs forthwith.