Wi-Lan Technologies Corp. v. D-Link Systems Inc.

Wi-Lan Technologies Corp. v. D-Link Systems Inc.

Allegations that defendants knowingly and wilfully infringed the patent and failed to negotiate a licence, without more (fraud, malice, abuse, continuing contempt of court or other aggravating conduct), do not constitute the exceptional, outrageous misconduct required to plead punitive or exemplary damages; therefore paragraph 13 and subparagraphs 1(c) and 1(f) must be struck and the Prothonotary erred in refusing to do so.

Citation
2006 FC 1484
Parties
Plaintiff: WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; Defendant: D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.; Defendant: D-LINK CANADA INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Motion to Strike Re Punitive Damages / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Strike
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Punitive/exemplary Damages, Motion to Strike, Willful Infringement, Standards Essential Patent Licensing
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Damages Punitive/exemplary Damages Motion to Strike Willful Infringement Standards Essential Patent Licensing

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WI-LAN TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

Plaintiff

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.

Defendant

D-LINK CANADA INC.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Motion to Strike Re Punitive Damages / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Motion to Strike

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations in the statement of claim suffice to plead punitive/exemplary damages
  2. 2 Whether the Prothonotary erred in refusing to strike paragraph 13 and subparagraph 1(f)
  3. 3 Standards for appellate intervention in Prothonotary decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Allegations that defendants knowingly and wilfully infringed the patent and failed to negotiate a licence, without more (fraud, malice, abuse, continuing contempt of court or other aggravating conduct), do not constitute the exceptional, outrageous misconduct required to plead punitive or exemplary damages; therefore paragraph 13 and subparagraphs 1(c) and 1(f) must be struck and the Prothonotary erred in refusing to do so.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Subparagraph 1(c) and 1(f) and Paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim are struck without leave to amend