McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company

McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company

The Prothonotary's grant of leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim was largely correct and should stand (standard: palpable and overriding error), but explicit licence language as pleaded against Simplot was deficient and must be removed from paragraph 17(b); licence and acquiescence declarations cannot be pursued as standalone causes of action in the Third Party Claim and paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) are struck; however declarations of induced infringement and claims for contractual indemnity and save-harmless relief against Elea have a reasonable prospect of success, fall within Rules 193 and 194 and the Federal Court's jurisdiction, and the motion to strike or stay the...

Citation
2019 FC 1635
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: McCain Foods Limited; Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: J.R. Simplot Company and Simplot Canada (II) Limited; Third Party: Elea Vertriebs-und-Vermarktungsgesellschaft, mbH
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (canadian Letters Patent No. 2,412,841) / Motions (appeal From Prothonotary's Order Granting Leave to Amend; Motion to Strike or Stay Third Party Claim)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Elea's motion to strike or stay dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Licence Defence, Acquiescence, Induced Infringement, Amendment of Pleadings, Third Party Claims (rules 193 and 194), Striking Pleadings, Federal Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Jurisdictional Law Contract Indemnity Forum Non Conveniens Licence Defence Acquiescence Induced Infringement +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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McCain Foods Limited

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

J.R. Simplot Company and Simplot Canada (II) Limited

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Elea Vertriebs-und-Vermarktungsgesellschaft, mbH

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (canadian Letters Patent No. 2,412,841) / Motions (appeal From Prothonotary's Order Granting Leave to Amend; Motion to Strike or Stay Third Party Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred in granting leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether licence and acquiescence defences have a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether licence and acquiescence can be asserted as standalone causes of action in a Third Party Claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary's grant of leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim was largely correct and should stand (standard: palpable and overriding error), but explicit licence language as pleaded against Simplot was deficient and must be removed from paragraph 17(b); licence and acquiescence declarations cannot be pursued as standalone causes of action in the Third Party Claim and paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) are struck; however declarations of induced infringement and claims for contractual indemnity and save-harmless relief against Elea have a reasonable prospect of success, fall within Rules 193 and 194 and the Federal Court's jurisdiction, and the motion to strike or stay the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Elea's motion to strike or stay dismissed in part

Orders

  • The wording "explicitly and/or" is struck from paragraph 17(b) of the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim with leave to amend
  • Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Third Party Claim are struck with leave to file an Amended Third Party Claim