Frac Shack Inc. v. AFD Petroleum Ltd

Frac Shack Inc. v. AFD Petroleum Ltd

The Court revised and explicitly defined the POSITA to include experience designing fuelling systems for fracturing refuelling equipment and confirmed the POSITA’s common general knowledge includes fuel system design, but held that this clarification does not change the previously adopted purposive constructions of "automatically operable valves","automatic fuel delivery" or "fuel cap", does not render claims 11-13 obvious, and leaves the findings of infringement and remedies, including prior accounting and costs awards, intact; the Trial Judgment, Supplemental Judgment and Costs Orders are maintained and no costs awarded for the remittal.

Citation
2018 FC 1047
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Frac Shack Inc.; Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Frac Shack International Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: AFD Petroleum Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity (redetermination Following Federal Court of Appeal Remittal) / Redetermination Following Federal Court of Appeal Remittal
Outcome
Trial Judgment, Supplemental Judgment and Costs Orders maintained; remittal considered; no costs awarded for the redetermination.
Legal Topics
Claim Construction, Person Skilled in the Art (posita), Common General Knowledge, Obviousness, Infringement, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Claim Construction Person Skilled in the Art (posita) Common General Knowledge Obviousness Infringement Remedies +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frac Shack Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Frac Shack International Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

AFD Petroleum Ltd.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity (redetermination Following Federal Court of Appeal Remittal) / Redetermination Following Federal Court of Appeal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper identification of the person skilled in the art and scope of that person’s common general knowledge
  2. 2 Proper purposive construction of the terms "automatically operable valve","automatic fuel delivery" and "fuel cap"
  3. 3 Whether claims 11-13 of the '567 Patent are obvious

Ratio Decidendi

The Court revised and explicitly defined the POSITA to include experience designing fuelling systems for fracturing refuelling equipment and confirmed the POSITA’s common general knowledge includes fuel system design, but held that this clarification does not change the previously adopted purposive constructions of "automatically operable valves","automatic fuel delivery" or "fuel cap", does not render claims 11-13 obvious, and leaves the findings of infringement and remedies, including prior accounting and costs awards, intact; the Trial Judgment, Supplemental Judgment and Costs Orders are maintained and no costs awarded for the remittal.

Court Disposition

Trial Judgment, Supplemental Judgment and Costs Orders maintained; remittal considered; no costs awarded for the redetermination.

Orders

  • The Trial Judgment, the Supplemental Judgment and the Costs Orders are maintained.
  • No costs are awarded for the Federal Court’s reconsideration ordered by the Federal Court of Appeal.