Decision

Western Oilfield Equipment Rentals Ltd. And FP Marangoni Inc. v. M-I LLC, 2021 FCA 24

Justice Mactavish; Justice Gleason; Justice Locke - 2021-02-09

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

This decision concerns an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court (2019 FC 1606, per Justice O’Reilly) which found that certain claims of the respondent’s Canadian Patent were valid and had been infringed by the appellants. ... As explained below, I have found no reviewable errors by the Federal Court. ... Before continuing, I feel compelled to say a few words about the lack of wisdom of raising so many issues on appeal, especially so many issues that are so factually suffused, without due attention to the standard of review on such issues. ... This suggestion was compounded at the hearing of the appeal when, despite the Court’s suggestion that the appellants focus on their strongest points, the appellants insisted on addressing all of the issues raised in their memorandum of fact and law. ... The context of subsection 55(2) does not suggest that a pre-issuance infringer can avoid liability therefor by discontinuing its activities prior to issuance of the patent. ... the principal benefit of a Gillette defence is to avoid the need to construe the claims and reach a conclusion on validity and infringement issues. Where a court has (i) construed the claims in issue, (ii) determined which claims are valid and which are not, and (iii) found certain valid claims to be infringed (as did the Federal Court in the present case), consideration of the Gillette defence is superfluous and unnecessary. ... The four-step test set out in Sanofi-Synthelabo at para. 67 is one way to assess obviousness, but it is not mandatory. ... It is not clear to me that defining an invention as a system rather than a machine should eliminate the need to comply with paragraph 27(3)(c) of the Patent Act. In addition, there is considerable doubt as to whether, despite the wording of paragraph 27(3)(c), the best-mode requirement is limited to machines

Decision relates to:

 

Canadian Intellectual Property