Lantech.com, LLC v. Wulftec International Inc.

Lantech.com, LLC v. Wulftec International Inc.

The proposed amendments fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and would not survive a motion to strike: the utility amendment improperly relies on patent description and commercial embodiments rather than claim‑based utility and smacks of an obviousness argument; the anticipation amendment is a bald allegation lacking particulars and evidence showing disclosure prior to the one‑year bar; the inventorship amendment is unsupported by material facts and misnaming alone does not invalidate patents. Accordingly the motion to amend is dismissed and costs awarded.

Citation
2018 FC 41
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: LANTECH.COM, LLC; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: WULFTEC INTERNATIONAL INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Dispute; Counterclaim; Motion to Amend Pleadings / Motion to Amend Pleadings (rule 75) Heard by Federal Court
Outcome
Motion to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Utility of Patent, Anticipation/prior Public Disclosure, Inventorship and Misnaming, Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery and Particulars, Costs
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Utility of Patent Anticipation/prior Public Disclosure Inventorship and Misnaming Amendment of Pleadings Discovery and Particulars +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LANTECH.COM, LLC

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

WULFTEC INTERNATIONAL INC.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Dispute; Counterclaim; Motion to Amend Pleadings / Motion to Amend Pleadings (rule 75) Heard by Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments disclose a reasonable cause of action and would survive a motion to strike under Rule 221
  2. 2 Whether the asserted patents lack utility as pleaded and whether utility must be assessed with reference to the claims
  3. 3 Whether the anticipation pleading contains sufficient particulars and whether alleged prior public disclosure predates the one‑year bar

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and would not survive a motion to strike: the utility amendment improperly relies on patent description and commercial embodiments rather than claim‑based utility and smacks of an obviousness argument; the anticipation amendment is a bald allegation lacking particulars and evidence showing disclosure prior to the one‑year bar; the inventorship amendment is unsupported by material facts and misnaming alone does not invalidate patents. Accordingly the motion to amend is dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend dismissed

Orders

  • Motion to amend to add paragraphs 33 to 45 dismissed
  • Costs to Plaintiff in the all-inclusive amount of $3,500 (CAD)