Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc.

Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc.

The motion was granted in part: the defendant must remove open, omnibus wording and provide specified particulars sufficient to allow the plaintiff to understand the defendant's case and plead a reply. Specifically, the defendant must list all problems of which it is aware related to the Vapor skates (para 8), list the events and players to whom the Vapor skate was disclosed or publicly used (para 10(c)), identify the specific portions of the patents and printed publications relied on for obviousness (para 10(e)), and specify which elements, part improvements or combinations and other grounds cause the patent claims to fail under s.27(3) and s.27(4) (para 10(f)). Re-amended defence to be...

Citation
2002 FCT 691
Parties
Plaintiff (cross Defendant): Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.; Defendant (cross Plaintiff): Easton Sports Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Patent/intellectual Property Dispute With Counterclaim / Pre Trial Interlocutory Motion for Further and Better Particulars Under the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Motion granted in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Particulars, Pleading Sufficiency, Obviousness, Specification and Claim Sufficiency, Discovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Patent Law Particulars Pleading Sufficiency Obviousness Specification and Claim Sufficiency Discovery

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.

Plaintiff (cross Defendant)

Easton Sports Canada Inc.

Defendant (cross Plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Patent/intellectual Property Dispute With Counterclaim / Pre Trial Interlocutory Motion for Further and Better Particulars Under the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant must provide further and better particulars for specific paragraphs of its defence and amended counterclaim (paras 8, 10(c), 10(e), 10(f))
  2. 2 Whether open or omnibus phrases in pleadings must be struck or particularized
  3. 3 Extent to which patent materials must be particularized when relied on in pleading obviousness and insufficiency under Patent Act s.27(3) and s.27(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was granted in part: the defendant must remove open, omnibus wording and provide specified particulars sufficient to allow the plaintiff to understand the defendant's case and plead a reply. Specifically, the defendant must list all problems of which it is aware related to the Vapor skates (para 8), list the events and players to whom the Vapor skate was disclosed or publicly used (para 10(c)), identify the specific portions of the patents and printed publications relied on for obviousness (para 10(e)), and specify which elements, part improvements or combinations and other grounds cause the patent claims to fail under s.27(3) and s.27(4) (para 10(f)). Re-amended defence to be...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Defendant must list all problems of which it is aware relating to the Plaintiff's Vapor skates and delete the open/omnibus phrasing in paragraph 8 of the defence
  • Defendant must list all events and all players to whom the Plaintiff's Vapor skate was disclosed or publicly used and delete the open/omnibus phrasing in paragraph 10(c) of the defence