Dana Canada Inc. v. Lubrizol Corporation

Dana Canada Inc. v. Lubrizol Corporation

The appeal was allowed because the motions judge exceeded the limited role on summary judgment by making determinative findings of disputed fact (notably regarding the essentiality of magnesium and the meaning of expert paragraphs) and failed to consider all relevant evidence; therefore the summary judgment dismissing the appellant's counterclaim and cross‑claim was set aside and the motions dismissed, leaving factual issues for trial.

Citation
C37622
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Dana Canada Inc.; Defendant/appellant: The Lubrizol Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Henkel Corporation
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (summary Judgment Motion) / Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge's Summary Judgment Ruling
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment dismissing appellant's counterclaim and cross‑claim set aside; motions for summary judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Claim Construction, Equivalence of Products, Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Patent Law Intellectual Property Summary Judgment Claim Construction Equivalence of Products Pleadings Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dana Canada Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

The Lubrizol Corporation

Defendant/appellant

Henkel Corporation

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (summary Judgment Motion) / Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge's Summary Judgment Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge impermissibly made findings of fact on a motion for summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether magnesium was an essential element of the claimed invention and whether substitution with calcium/barium falls within the monopoly
  3. 3 Whether pleadings alleging equivalence amount to admissions for patent purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the motions judge exceeded the limited role on summary judgment by making determinative findings of disputed fact (notably regarding the essentiality of magnesium and the meaning of expert paragraphs) and failed to consider all relevant evidence; therefore the summary judgment dismissing the appellant's counterclaim and cross‑claim was set aside and the motions dismissed, leaving factual issues for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment dismissing appellant's counterclaim and cross‑claim set aside; motions for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • No declaration as to patent validity ordered between the parties.
  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.