Hologic Canada v. Christie Innomed inc., 2025 QCCS 4127
2025-09-26
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The Defendant Christie requests the Court to dismiss, at the stage of inadmissibility the Plaintiff Hologic's Application for a Permanent Injunction. Hologic designs and manufactures medical imaging equipment, including mammography devices. Christie operates in the field of distribution and repair of medical imaging products across Canada. ... Hologic allegedly discovered that a Christie employee had developed software, through reverse engineering, which allows the continued maintenance of equipment sold during their contractual relationship, after the expiry of the contract binding the parties ... Christie filed its Motion to Dismiss and argued that Hologic's claim was not legally sound and should be dismissed at the preliminary stage. According to Christie, the coming into force of the Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair) (Right to Remedy Act) prevents the Plaintiff's recourse. Christie also argues that Article 18(m) of the Contract potentially creates a perpetual obligation for her and should be considered a non-competition clause with no time limit for its application. This renders it void and unenforceable. ... An examination of the allegations and documents in the Originating Application, taken to be true, does not allow the Tribunal to conclude that the Application should be dismissed. ... This is not a clear-cut case. For example, what about the possible distinction between consumers and businesses that acquired products before the Act came into force, and those that entered into a contract containing clauses preventing them from circumventing the TPMs. It is possible to recognize the prospective effect of the Act while recognizing that Christie, for example, has contractually undertaken not to circumvent the TPMs and is bound by this contractual obligation. (based on a translation)