Solucore Inc. v. KJA Consultants Inc., 2026 CanLII 62325
Associate Justice Horne - 2026-06-25
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
"This is an action for infringement of Canadian patent 2,921,460 [the 460 Patent]. … Schedule “B” to the statement of defence and counterclaim sets out a list of 74 prior art references in support of both anticipation and obviousness. The defendants further rely on the Gillette defence, which is broadly based on the same 74 prior art references. … A defendant relying on the Gillette defence is making a positive assertion that its product or service - what it is actually manufacturing, using, or selling - is the same as or not patentably distinct from a prior art reference that was available before the priority date. This necessarily requires a defendant to plead both what it is doing, and how those activities are the same as or not patentably distinct from a specific prior art reference. Here, the defendants have not pleaded what they are doing, other than to say it can be found in a combination of one or more of 74 prior art references. … Of the 74 references in Schedule “B”, 17 of them are what is described in the materials as “Prior Art Products and Systems.” … If the defendants are relying on documents or videos that describe the features of earlier lift device products or systems, then they must provide a closed list of what documents are relied on in this respect."
Decision relates to:
- T-2620-25 - SOLUCORE INC. et Al. v. KJA CONSULTANTS INC. et Al.