Camso Inc. v. Soucy International Inc., 2016 FC 1116
Justice Roy - 2016-10-06
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
[Note this is a 2016 decision recently published online] The plaintiff, Camso, is requesting that this Court stay a request made by the law firm of Brouillette + Partners to re-examine a patent that Camso holds. This request for re-examination is related to all of the claims of Canadian patent 2,822,562, which Camso owns and has asserted against Soucy International in the underlying patent infringement litigation. ... [I]t must be recognized that the same issues in the request for re-examination are raised in the action, that there is a possibility of inconsistent findings on factual records with different content, and that the decisions would likely be made in parallel. The fact that one action was initiated before the other is of little importance; the difficulty in the request for re-examination, with its limited file on an issue that must be discussed on its merits in an action, leads me to conclude that the action launched in Federal Court is the best vehicle for dealing with this complex issue. The efficient use of judicial and other resources is far from being achieved with two actions that continue to progress at the same time when these two proceedings have the same final outcome. It seems to me that the analysis grid in White leads to one outcome, which is consistent with the three-prong test in RJR-MacDonald. I therefore grant the motion to stay the re-examination proceeding.
Decision relates to:
- T-2338-14 - CAMOPLAST SOLIDEAL INC. v. SOUCY INTERNATIONAL INC. ET AL