Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Claims construed purposively; "ignition pattern" requires a plurality of ignition points (a relationship curve of ignition timing vs engine speed/throttle). The asserted claims require the controller to activate the ignition source according to such a pattern that is selected or modified based upon sensed exhaust gas temperature. BRP's engines instead select a base map, extract a single ignition point and then apply corrections (including exhaust gas temperature) to that point prior to ignition. That difference in nature is dispositive: no infringement. Alternatively, if claims are read more broadly to cover point-by-point correction, asserted subject-matter is obvious in light of prior...

Citation
2016 FC 1047
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales, Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (canadian Patent No. 2,322,738) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Action dismissed; counterclaim succeeded in declaring asserted claims invalid if construed broadly; declaration that BRP does not infringe any valid and asserted claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,322,738
Legal Topics
Infringement, Claim Construction, Validity, Anticipation, Obviousness, Overbreadth, Inventorship, Damages, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Litigation Infringement Claim Construction Validity Anticipation Obviousness +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales, Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (canadian Patent No. 2,322,738) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of term "ignition pattern" and scope of asserted claims (11,16,33,40,47)
  2. 2 Whether BRP's accused engines infringe when compared to construed claims
  3. 3 Validity of asserted claims: anticipation and obviousness (prior art including Japanese Application 959 and US Patent 5,946,908)

Ratio Decidendi

Claims construed purposively; "ignition pattern" requires a plurality of ignition points (a relationship curve of ignition timing vs engine speed/throttle). The asserted claims require the controller to activate the ignition source according to such a pattern that is selected or modified based upon sensed exhaust gas temperature. BRP's engines instead select a base map, extract a single ignition point and then apply corrections (including exhaust gas temperature) to that point prior to ignition. That difference in nature is dispositive: no infringement. Alternatively, if claims are read more broadly to cover point-by-point correction, asserted subject-matter is obvious in light of prior...

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; counterclaim succeeded in declaring asserted claims invalid if construed broadly; declaration that BRP does not infringe any valid and asserted claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,322,738

Orders

  • The action for infringement by Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales Inc. is dismissed.
  • Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. is entitled to its costs; parties to file written submissions limited to 5 pages on costs within 20 days of judgment.