Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Rail Radar Inc. and Tetra Tech EBA Inc., 2018 FC 70

Justice Fothergill - 2018-01-31

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

According to Georgetown, this case relates to systems and methods for determining the degree of wear of a wooden tie under a tie plate (the 082 Patent) and the degree of wear of a pad or a concrete crosstie under a rail (the 249 Patent). ... Tetra says that the 3DTAS infringes neither the 082 Patent nor the 249 Patent. Tetra has also challenged the validity of both Patents on the ground of obviousness. ... For the reasons that follow, I find that the 082 and 249 Patents are not invalid on the ground of obviousness. The identification of the particular problems, and the use of machine vision and specified calculations as possible solutions, required invention and were not obvious as of the relevant dates. The essential elements of the relevant 082 and 249 Patent claims are also present in the 3DTAS. Tetra’s sale of the 3DTAS to CN and its support of the system therefore infringed both Patents.

Decision relates to:


Canadian Intellectual Property