Gemak Trust Et. Al. v. Jempak ULC, 2026 FC 901
Justice Pallotta - 2026-07-14
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is an action for infringement of Canadian patent titled “Detergent” (428 Patent). The 428 Patent relates to detergent product formulations that can be packaged in a water-soluble film—for example, pods or sachets containing a single dose of laundry detergent or dishwasher detergent. ... In 2020, Jempak’s predecessor was successful on a motion for summary judgment (2020 FC 644). ... The FCA set aside the summary judgment and ordered that the matter proceed to trial (2022 FCA 141). ... GEMAK has not proven infringement. In this regard, the central infringement issue is whether the asserted products have granules comprising a percarbonate and a blend encapsulating the percarbonate, wherein the blend comprises a sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant according to claim 10. As I will explain, I am not satisfied that GEMAK has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the tested granules had all three blend components on their surface. ... GEMAK bears the burden to prove infringement, and evidence of improved stability might have helped. But there is no stability evidence before me to prove that the stability of Jempak’s granules or products is attributable to a blend encapsulating the percarbonate of claim 10, rather than non-infringing means. For this additional reason, GEMAK has not proven infringement. ... Jempak does not rely on the invalidity opinions of its expert Dr. Tremblay. In closing arguments, Jempak said Dr. Tremblay was confused on the stand, and defaulted to merely agreeing with points that were put to him in cross-examination even when they were plainly wrong ... In my view, Jempak cannot meet its burden to prove anticipation or obviousness without Dr. Tremblay’s evidence. ... In my view, Jempak has met its burden to prove insufficiency. Mr. Hinton withheld information about the formulations that worked and did not work, and he did not put the skilled person in a position to make the same successful use of the invention as he could. ... However, Jempak has not met its burden on the grounds of overbreadth or inutility.
Decision relates to:
- T-1288-18 - GEMAK TRUST v. JEMPAK CORPORATION ET AL