Hamel et al v. Robitaille Équipement inc. et al., 200-17-023821-168


Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

Patentee in a patent infringement proceeding sought a disallowance of an admission of counsel during trial on the basis that the applicant had not authorized the statements. Two patents were at issue in the proceeding, but Counsel had indicated one of the patents was invalid on several occasions and cross-examination on the patent was refused as no longer relevant. Trial had started in November 2019, had several hearing days in mid-March 2020 and was scheduled to resume in late September. The Court found that the failure to raise this issue by the applicant or separate plaintiff counsel at the first instance was sufficient to dismiss the motion and upheld the declaration that the patent was invalid. (based on a translation)


Canadian Intellectual Property