Decision

Proslide Technology Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, LTD., 2026 FCA 59

Justice Locke; Justice Heckman; Justice Roussel - 2026-03-20

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

These legal questions arise from a decision of the Federal Court (2024 FC 1439), which concluded that numerous claims of several patents owned by ProSlide were invalid and also not infringed by WhiteWater. ... Despite my acknowledgement that claiming more broadly than the invention made is a distinct ground of invalidity from claiming more broadly than the invention disclosed, it does not follow that the invention made (or contemplated) should be determined without reference to the patent specification. On the contrary, in most cases, it is difficult to imagine a more reliable (and more timely) indication of what the inventor contemplated than the patent specification. ... In my view, the Federal Court erred in finding that the features discussed above were key aspects of the invention whose omission from the asserted claims could lead to a conclusion of overclaiming. I would reverse the Federal Court’s finding that the asserted claims are invalid for overclaiming. ... The asserted claims concern slide features for amusement rides, and WhiteWater’s activities in Canada did not extend to physically using the claimed slide features. The extent to which WhiteWater’s designs, drawings and testing had advanced does not alter this fact. ... Much of the parties’ submissions on the first argument (concerning the required level of disclosure) relate to whether a heightened disclosure requirement applies when sound prediction of utility is in issue and, if so, whether such heightened disclosure requirement applies generally or only to inventions related to new uses of known compounds or articles. It is not necessary to answer these questions in this case because (i) the Federal Court applied a heightened disclosure requirement and still found that the disclosure requirement had been met in the 552 Patent Family (see paragraphs 149 and 259 to 261 of the FC Decision), and (ii) as explained in the paragraphs below, I find that the Federal Court did not err in its conclusion that the asserted claims do not lack utility.

Decision relates to:

 

Canadian Intellectual Property