Decision

Sernova Corp. v. Shapiro, 2018 ONSC 841

2018-03-06

Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

This application relates to the ownership of a family of patent applications, which are described below, and whether injunctive relief should be granted to protect such ownership. ... In my opinion, the DLI had utility prior to Dr. Shapiro’s involvement with the Applicant and the Applicant’s claim must fail. The DLI was independently developed by Shapiro PC without reference to any of the Applicant’s Proprietary Information. The DLI is not Company Work Product. In order to be Company Work Product under the Consulting Agreement, the DLI must have been “solely or jointly conceived, made, reduced to practice, or learned by [Shapiro PC] in the course of any services performed for the [the Applicant]”. Since the DLI was invented prior to the implementation of the Consulting Agreement, the DLI cannot have been “conceived, made, reduced to practice, or learned by [Shapiro PC] in the course of any services performed for the [the Applicant].”

 

Canadian Intellectual Property