Farmobile, LLC. v. Farmers Edge Inc., 2018 FC 915
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
In its Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Farmers Edge alleges, among other things, that it is the rightful owner of the ‘742 Patent having been assigned all rights of the invention claimed in the ‘742 Patent, that all rights to the invention claimed in the ‘742 Patent have been assigned to Farmers Edge, that there has never been a proper assignment of the invention claimed in the ‘742 Patent to Farmobile, and that rights in the ‘742 Patent of the alleged co-inventor, Ron Osbourne, had been assigned to Farmers Edge. ... Farmobile has brought a motion to strike the portions of the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim relating to ownership of the ‘742 Patent on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on those matters ... For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the impugned portions of the Amended Counterclaim must be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. I conclude that the impugned portions of the Amended Statement of Defence are within the jurisdiction of this Court because the defence differs in nature and purpose from the counterclaim. I dismiss the motion by Farmers Edge to strike out, or alternatively, stay the entire proceeding pending determination of the matters raised in the pleadings being struck out.
Decision relates to:
- T-449-17 - FARMOBILE, LLC. v. FARMERS EDGE INC.