Steelhead Lng (Aslng) Ltd. v. Arc Resources Ltd., 2023 FC 1684
Justice Manson - 2023-12-13
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This proceeding is a counterclaim commenced by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim. ... The Court previously held on summary trial that the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim did not infringe on the 085 Patent and accordingly dismissed the action underlying this counterclaim (2022 FC 998). Here, the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim seek a declaration that the claims of the 085 Patent are invalid. ... Steelhead says that the configuration claimed by the 085 Patent is a novel invention. Based on the above, the patent must disclose a new use or enhanced benefit to the combination that was not previously known. I am unable to discern any such new use or enhanced benefit from the evidence before the Court. In fact, the background section to the 085 Patent describes the intended use and purported benefit of the claimed invention as access to natural gas in shallow waters for commercial purposes. Each of Sullivan 2017, Sullivan 2016, Talib 2014, and Talib 2013 contemplates such use and benefit. Therefore, the only way for any of the claims of the 085 Patent to be novel is if they include elements in their configuration that were not part of the options or configurations disclosed by any given piece of prior art. ... Both experts say that there is a difference between the system of claim 11 and the state of the art as it was in June 2018. I disagree with both experts. ... The skilled person would understand that the power cables are connected to the FLNG facility shown in each slide. The Sullivan presentations are both citable prior art for the purposes of obviousness. Therefore, there is no difference between the state of the art and the invention disclosed by claim 11. The claim is obvious. ... Arc’s expert also acknowledges that the skilled person “would not configure the topside of an at-shore FLNG to have a single opening in its upper (or main) deck for routing all of the LNG”. He nevertheless says that a single deck opening is “neither ingenious nor inventive” because it is unsafe. However, safety goes to utility, not obviousness. Arc’s expert’s evidence is consistent with the view that the subject matter of claim 24 (and claim 25 by extension) is not obvious. ... Arc was able to show invalidity for all four independent claims, and the majority of dependent claims. It is predominantly the successful party in this proceeding. ... The Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim are awarded 30% of reasonable legal fees, plus 100% of reasonable disbursements, less those reasonable fees and disbursements wasted by the Defendants by Counterclaim on the abuse of process counterclaim. Reasonable fees are limited to three counsel at most for each discrete step in the action.
Decision relates to:
- T-1488-20 - STEELHEAD LNG (ASLNG) LTD ET AL. v. SEVEN GENS ENERGY LTD, ROCKIES LNG ET AL
- A-361-23 - which is an appeal from this decision