Canada Case Law

McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court did not commit a palpable and overriding error in its factual appreciation of expert evidence and common general knowledge; 'high electric field' in Claim 1 is properly understood by a skilled person at the date of publication to refer to electric fields in the range of about 2 to 200 V/cm, which excludes Simplot's pulsed electric field systems, and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Claim construction
• Infringement
• Invalidity
• Utility
• Person skilled in the art
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Proslide Technology Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, LTD.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal in part, concluding the Federal Court erred in finding asserted claims invalid for overbreadth by privileging pre-filing inventor testimony and expert perspectives over the patent specification; the specification controls the assessment of what the inventor contemplated at the filing date. The Court affirmed the Federal Court's conclusion that WhiteWater did not infringe because making/using a claimed physical invention for purposes of s.42 requires physical manufacture/assembly/use in Canada (conceptual designs and advanced design activities in Canada are insuffi…

Source excerpt

• Overbreadth (overclaiming)
• Patent infringement territoriality
• Utility and sound prediction
• Claim construction
• Remedies and costs

Read case analysis

Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc. v. Tekna Plasma Systems Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court did not err: the claims were ambiguous because a skilled reader could not reliably distinguish the claimed 'depletion layer' from the native oxide layer (502 Patent) nor determine the existence or parameters of a depletion layer (236 Patent); therefore the claims failed the distinctness/notice requirement and are invalid for ambiguity, and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Claim construction
• Ambiguity (patent indefiniteness)
• Invalidity
• Infringement
• Insufficiency
• Costs

Read case analysis

AGI Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court declined to adopt the respondent’s proposed percentage-of-actual-fees approach on appeal, finding that elevated awards tied to actual fees are not routinely appropriate in the appellate context; the respondent did not prove its offers engaged Rule 420 because they lacked an ingredient of compromise; consequently the Court awarded a modest premium over Tariff B Column V, fixing costs at $25,000 plus interest and referring disbursements to the Assessment Officer.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Settlement offers
• Post-judgment interest
• Claim construction
• Tariff application

Read case analysis

Adeia Guides Inc. v. Videotron Ltd.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court considered patent validity, claim construction, infringement, and remedies in a dispute between Adeia Guides Inc. and Videotron Ltd. over interactive television technologies.

• Infringement
• Validity
• Claim construction
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Double patenting

Read case analysis

NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court erred in law by misapplying claim differentiation and treating dependent-claim limitations (the sealed embodiment) as excluded from the broader claims; properly construed, claims 6, 11, 12 and 16 of the 571 patent encompass both the sealed and gap embodiments; because claim construction was legally incorrect the question of obviousness double patenting in view of claim 17 of the 830 patent must be remitted to the Federal Court for re-determination; the trial judge's lump sum costs award of $1,800,000 was procedurally and evidentially flawed and is set aside and replaced with…

Source excerpt

• Claim construction
• Obviousness double patenting
• Infringement
• Lump sum costs
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

AGI Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court affirmed the Federal Court’s purposive construction limiting 'manufacturer code' and 'device class' to their ISO meanings, found those parameters and the microprocessor location to be essential based on the disclosure and lack of contrary expert evidence, held the CanPlug and FarmCommand did not include the essential ISO parameters so did not infringe, and concluded the '742 Patent is invalid because the GreenStar 3 anticipated the device claims and the remaining device and system claims were obvious in light of ISO and the common general knowledge; accordingly the appeals were dism…

Source excerpt

• Infringement
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Claim construction
• Essentiality
• Costs

Read case analysis

McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court construed key patent terms in McCain’s potato-processing patent, found Simplot’s PEF process outside the claims, and dismissed the action.

• Claim construction
• Infringement
• Patent validity
• Overbreadth
• Utility (sound prediction)
• Anticipation

Read case analysis

Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court’s factual findings and credibility assessments supported its conclusions that the asserted claims were disclosed, anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art; the appellants failed to show any palpable and overriding error or legal error in the Federal Court’s application of disclosure, anticipation and obviousness law, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Disclosure/enablement
• Claim construction
• Standard of review
• Costs

Read case analysis

Bayer Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held that the 276 Patent was ineligible for listing because Claim 58 did not claim the very change in use approved by the SNDS-related NOC.

• Pmnoc regulations
• Patent listing eligibility
• Claim construction
• Abbott test
• Notice of compliance
• Biosimilar regulatory stay

Read case analysis