Safilo Canada Inc. v. Contour Optik Inc.

Safilo Canada Inc. v. Contour Optik Inc.

The motion to strike was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that subsections 60(1) or 60(2) of the Patent Act exclude joinder of a licensee; the statutory interpretation advanced by Chic involved complex questions properly left for trial, so the Court refused to strike the claim against Chic and awarded costs to Chic.

Citation
2004 FC 1534
Parties
Plaintiff: SAFILO CANADA LTD.; Defendant (patentee): CONTOUR OPTIK INC.; Defendant (licensee): CHIC OPTIC INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Under Rule 221(1)(a) Federal Court Rules / Pre Trial Motion to Dismiss/strike Statement of Claim
Outcome
Motion by Chic Optic Inc. to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Invalidity, Non Infringement Declaration, Joinder of Parties, Jurisdiction, Motion to Strike
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Patent Invalidity Non Infringement Declaration Joinder of Parties Jurisdiction Motion to Strike

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAFILO CANADA LTD.

Plaintiff

CONTOUR OPTIK INC.

Defendant (patentee)

CHIC OPTIC INC.

Defendant (licensee)

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Under Rule 221(1)(a) Federal Court Rules / Pre Trial Motion to Dismiss/strike Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a licensee can be joined as a defendant under s.60(1) or s.60(2) of the Patent Act
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the action against a licensee
  3. 3 Whether the wording of 'patentee' in s.60(2) excludes licensees and mandates dismissal on a plain and obvious standard

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to strike was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that subsections 60(1) or 60(2) of the Patent Act exclude joinder of a licensee; the statutory interpretation advanced by Chic involved complex questions properly left for trial, so the Court refused to strike the claim against Chic and awarded costs to Chic.

Court Disposition

Motion by Chic Optic Inc. to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action dismissed

Orders

  • Motion by Chic Optic Inc. to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action is dismissed with costs to Chic Optic Inc.