Frac Shack Inc. v. AFD Petroleum Ltd.

Frac Shack Inc. v. AFD Petroleum Ltd.

Court admitted the expert reports, construed the key claim terms purposively, found claims 1-6,16-18,20-26,32-37 invalid as broader than the disclosed invention, found claims 7-15,19,27-31,38 valid and infringed by AFD (specific claim infringements delineated for periods before and after October 18, 2014), awarded a permanent injunction, directed accounting for profits for the post-grant infringement period and reasonable compensation for the pre-grant period, denied punitive damages, and awarded costs to plaintiffs at the midpoint of Column IV Tariff B.

Citation
2017 FC 104
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
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs in part: specified claims invalidated, specified claims found valid and infringed by Defendant during defined periods; permanent injunction granted; accounting for profits and reasonable pre-grant compensation ordered; punitive damages denied; costs to Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Infringement, Validity, Sufficiency, Obviousness, Claim Construction, Remedies, Injunction, Accounting for Profits, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Infringement Validity Sufficiency Obviousness Claim Construction Remedies +3 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 15 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 / Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of expert reports under Mohan
  2. 2 Claim construction (automatic, fuel cap, work site, valve arrangement, pump on the line)
  3. 3 Sufficiency of disclosure (utility)

Ratio Decidendi

Court admitted the expert reports, construed the key claim terms purposively, found claims 1-6,16-18,20-26,32-37 invalid as broader than the disclosed invention, found claims 7-15,19,27-31,38 valid and infringed by AFD (specific claim infringements delineated for periods before and after October 18, 2014), awarded a permanent injunction, directed accounting for profits for the post-grant infringement period and reasonable compensation for the pre-grant period, denied punitive damages, and awarded costs to plaintiffs at the midpoint of Column IV Tariff B.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs in part: specified claims invalidated, specified claims found valid and infringed by Defendant during defined periods; permanent injunction granted; accounting for profits and reasonable pre-grant compensation ordered; punitive damages denied; costs to Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Claims 1 to 6, 16 to 18, 20 to 26, and 32 to 37 of Canadian Patent No. 2,693,567 declared invalid as broader than any invention made or disclosed
  • Claims 7 to 15, 19, 27 to 31, and 38 declared valid