Inventions Armand Morin Inc. v. Risley Manufacturing Ltd.

Inventions Armand Morin Inc. v. Risley Manufacturing Ltd.

The statement of claim was not strikingly deficient because the defendant had already filed a detailed statement of defence admitting manufacture and sales and distinguishing its product from the patent; therefore it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Particulars were denied because the defence admissions, licences and lack of an affidavit undermined the need for compelled particulars and ordering them would unduly delay proceedings. The court granted bifurcation under Rule 107 because the plaintiffs agreed and bifurcation would conserve resources.

Citation
2005 FC 362
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Les Inventions Armand Morin Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: 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 (motion to Strike, Particulars, and Bifurcation)
Outcome
Motion denied in part and granted in part
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Striking Pleadings, Particulars, Bifurcation of Issues, Court Scheduling
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Striking Pleadings Particulars Bifurcation of Issues Court Scheduling

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Inventions Armand Morin Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Équipement Quadco Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Risley Manufacturing Ltd.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Motion (motion to Strike, Particulars, and Bifurcation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 11-15 of the statement of claim should be struck
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs must be compelled to provide further and better particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was not strikingly deficient because the defendant had already filed a detailed statement of defence admitting manufacture and sales and distinguishing its product from the patent; therefore it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Particulars were denied because the defence admissions, licences and lack of an affidavit undermined the need for compelled particulars and ordering them would unduly delay proceedings. The court granted bifurcation under Rule 107 because the plaintiffs agreed and bifurcation would conserve resources.

Court Disposition

Motion denied in part and granted in part

Orders

  • Order denied striking the Statement of Claim in its entirety
  • Order denied striking paragraphs 11-15 of the Statement of Claim