Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google Canada Corporation

Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google Canada Corporation

After purposive construction and evaluation of common general knowledge, claims 28, 44, 59, 75 and dependent claims and claim 9 are invalid for lack of sufficiency/enablement; claims 1 and 17 (and their dependents) are invalid as anticipated or obvious in view of prior art commercial bid management products and contemporaneous disclosures; consequently none of the asserted claims are infringed by Google and the action is dismissed.

Citation
2021 FC 1435
Parties
Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim: Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC; Defendants and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Google Canada Corporation; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Action dismissed; counterclaim granted in part; all asserted claims invalid; no infringement; costs awarded to Google
Legal Topics
Claim Construction, Sufficiency/enablement, Priority Date, Anticipation, Obviousness, Infringement, Remedies, Territoriality
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Claim Construction Sufficiency/enablement Priority Date Anticipation Obviousness Infringement +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC

Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim

Google Canada Corporation; Google LLC; Alphabet Inc.

Defendants and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of asserted claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,415,167
  2. 2 Sufficiency/enablement of asserted claims
  3. 3 Priority date for claims 1-27

Ratio Decidendi

After purposive construction and evaluation of common general knowledge, claims 28, 44, 59, 75 and dependent claims and claim 9 are invalid for lack of sufficiency/enablement; claims 1 and 17 (and their dependents) are invalid as anticipated or obvious in view of prior art commercial bid management products and contemporaneous disclosures; consequently none of the asserted claims are infringed by Google and the action is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; counterclaim granted in part; all asserted claims invalid; no infringement; costs awarded to Google

Orders

  • The action is dismissed.
  • The counterclaim is granted: Claims 1 and 17 and dependent claims are invalid as anticipated or obvious; Claims 9, 28, 44, 59, 75 and dependent claims are invalid for lack of sufficiency.