Farmobile, LLC. v. Farmers Edge Inc.

Farmobile, LLC. v. Farmers Edge Inc.

The portions of the Amended Counterclaim seeking a declaration of ownership and an order under s.52 to vary Patent Office records were struck because, viewed independently, the counterclaim is primarily a contractual dispute requiring interpretation of agreements and therefore plainly and obviously outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction; however, the corresponding allegations in the Amended Statement of Defence remain within Federal Court jurisdiction because when invoked as a defence they are ancillary to the patent infringement action and properly adjudicated in the Federal Court. Motions to strike the entire proceeding or to stay it were dismissed.

Citation
2018 FC 915
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Farmobile, LLC.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Farmers Edge Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Counterclaim Regarding Patent Ownership / Interlocutory Motions (motion to Strike; Motion to Stay/strike Entire Proceedings)
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion to strike granted in part (counterclaim paragraphs struck); Defendant's motions to strike entire proceedings and for a stay dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Patent Ownership, Patent Infringement, Jurisdictional Challenge, Strike Pleadings, Stay of Proceedings, Counterclaim
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Federal Court Jurisdiction Patent Ownership Patent Infringement Jurisdictional Challenge +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farmobile, LLC.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Farmers Edge Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Counterclaim Regarding Patent Ownership / Interlocutory Motions (motion to Strike; Motion to Stay/strike Entire Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a counterclaim seeking declaration of patent ownership and variation of Patent Office records under s.52 of the Patent Act
  2. 2 Whether contractual interpretation required to determine ownership renders the counterclaim outside Federal Court jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether portions of the defendant's statement of defence invoking the same agreements are within Federal Court jurisdiction when used as a shield

Ratio Decidendi

The portions of the Amended Counterclaim seeking a declaration of ownership and an order under s.52 to vary Patent Office records were struck because, viewed independently, the counterclaim is primarily a contractual dispute requiring interpretation of agreements and therefore plainly and obviously outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction; however, the corresponding allegations in the Amended Statement of Defence remain within Federal Court jurisdiction because when invoked as a defence they are ancillary to the patent infringement action and properly adjudicated in the Federal Court. Motions to strike the entire proceeding or to stay it were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion to strike granted in part (counterclaim paragraphs struck); Defendant's motions to strike entire proceedings and for a stay dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 15(a), 15(c), 15(d), 15(e), 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are struck from the Amended Counterclaim.
  • The Defendant shall, within 14 days of the date of this Order, serve and file a further amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to remove the struck portions.