Purcell Systems, Inc. v. Argus Technologies Ltd.

Purcell Systems, Inc. v. Argus Technologies Ltd.

Argus is an 'interested person' under s.60(1) because it manufactures and trades in competing products and is affected by the patent; Purcell's initial discontinuance terminated its action so the subsequent filing of a discontinuance with prejudice had no legal effect to deprive Argus of standing; the Prothonotary erred in striking the counterclaim and the counterclaim must be reinstated.

Citation
2008 FC 1210
Parties
Plaintiff: PURCELL SYSTEMS, INC.; Defendant: ARGUS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement; Counterclaim for Invalidity / Appeal From Prothonotary Order; Motion to Strike Counterclaim and Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal granted; Prothonotary order set aside; Argus counterclaim reinstated; costs awarded to Argus.
Legal Topics
Interested Person, Discontinuance, Declaratory Relief, Invalidity, Section 60 Patent Act, Standard of Review, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Interested Person Discontinuance Declaratory Relief Invalidity Section 60 Patent Act +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PURCELL SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff

ARGUS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement; Counterclaim for Invalidity / Appeal From Prothonotary Order; Motion to Strike Counterclaim and Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Argus an 'interested person' under s.60(1) of the Patent Act?
  2. 2 What is the effect of the initial discontinuance on a subsequent discontinuance with prejudice?
  3. 3 Does a discontinuance with prejudice bar a counterclaim for invalidity under s.60(1)?

Ratio Decidendi

Argus is an 'interested person' under s.60(1) because it manufactures and trades in competing products and is affected by the patent; Purcell's initial discontinuance terminated its action so the subsequent filing of a discontinuance with prejudice had no legal effect to deprive Argus of standing; the Prothonotary erred in striking the counterclaim and the counterclaim must be reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal granted; Prothonotary order set aside; Argus counterclaim reinstated; costs awarded to Argus.

Orders

  • The Appeal is granted.
  • The counterclaim by Argus is reinstated.