Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V.

Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V.

Because it was not plain and obvious that allegations of lack of candour or related equitable claims could not succeed and relief could be claimed under s.43(8) and equitable principles, the Court allowed the proposed amendments; Monsanto's proposed paragraph 13 must be particularized and paragraph 14 reworded to remove speculation.

Citation
2009 FC 1013
Parties
Plaintiff (t 1524 08); Defendant (t 1569 08, T 1581 08): Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.; Defendant (all Dockets): Bayer Bioscience N.V.; Defendant (t 1524 08); Plaintiff (t 1569 08): Monsanto Technology LLC; Defendant (t 1524 08, T 1569 08); Plaintiff (t 1581 08): Syngenta Participations A.G.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Conflict Proceedings (entitlement to Patent) / Motions to Amend Pleadings (reasons for Order)
Outcome
Motions granted in part: Mycogen allowed to amend; Monsanto allowed to amend subject to particularization and rewording; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Duty of Candour, Amendment of Pleadings, Conflict Proceedings Under Pre 1989 Patent Act, Inequitable Conduct, Pleading Standards
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Duty of Candour Amendment of Pleadings Conflict Proceedings Under Pre 1989 Patent Act Inequitable Conduct Pleading Standards

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.

Plaintiff (t 1524 08); Defendant (t 1569 08, T 1581 08)

Bayer Bioscience N.V.

Defendant (all Dockets)

Monsanto Technology LLC

Defendant (t 1524 08); Plaintiff (t 1569 08)

Syngenta Participations A.G.

Defendant (t 1524 08, T 1569 08); Plaintiff (t 1581 08)

Procedural Posture

Patent Conflict Proceedings (entitlement to Patent) / Motions to Amend Pleadings (reasons for Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to pleadings raising lack of candour/inequitable conduct based on Jansens affidavit should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether Canadian law recognizes a duty of candour in prosecution of patent applications and what relief flows from a breach
  3. 3 Whether allegations derived from US proceedings (inequitable conduct findings) are cognizable in Canadian conflict proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Because it was not plain and obvious that allegations of lack of candour or related equitable claims could not succeed and relief could be claimed under s.43(8) and equitable principles, the Court allowed the proposed amendments; Monsanto's proposed paragraph 13 must be particularized and paragraph 14 reworded to remove speculation.

Court Disposition

Motions granted in part: Mycogen allowed to amend; Monsanto allowed to amend subject to particularization and rewording; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Mycogen’s motion to amend its Statement of Claim is allowed.
  • Monsanto’s motion to amend its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim is allowed provided paragraph 13 is particularized and paragraph 14 is reworded as discussed in the Reasons.