Mud Engineering Inc. v. Secure Energy Services Inc., 2020 FC 1049
Proth. Aalto - 2020-11-12
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
“... it is hard enough for many to pursue a case from beginning to end; why force them to do it twice?” ... On the present motion before the Court, the Plaintiff/Defendants by Counterclaim (Mud Engineering) seek a determination of a point of law either by way of a declaration or by way of an order pursuant to Rule 220 as to whether this Court has the jurisdiction to decide ownership of the Disputed Patents. ... This change in the approach of Secure Energy may arise from the fact that recently, the Federal Court of Appeal in Salt Canada has definitively and, one hopes, finally put this issue to rest once and for all. ... In this action, Secure Energy alleges it owns the Disputed Patents and raises this as a defence to infringement. Thus, Secure Energy seeks an order correcting the Patent Office’s records. This is on all fours with Justice Stratas’ conclusion that ownership of patents requires interpretation of documents whether they be contracts, employment agreements, or other documents. ... There is inherently no difference between interpreting contracts for the purposes of registration of a patent and a determination of ownership of a patent in an infringement action.
Decision relates to:
- T-89-18 - MUD ENGINEERING INC. v. SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. ET AL