Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc., 2021 FC 276

Justice McHaffie - 2021-03-31

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd claims its competitor, Nomadix, Inc, is infringing or inducing infringement of two of its patents by selling access gateway devices and licensing the software they run on. ... I conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing the patents in light of the common general knowledge (CGK) would understand some of the terms in the patent claims in accordance with the constructions Guest Tek proposed, and some as Nomadix proposed. On the basis of these constructions and my assessment of Nomadix’s software as informed by the expert evidence, I conclude Nomadix has not infringed or induced infringement of the asserted claims of either the ’760 Patent or the ’345 Patent. ... With respect to the counterclaim, I conclude Nomadix has not shown the asserted claims of either the ’760 Patent or the ’345 Patent to be invalid as having been anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. ... In my view, this evidence indicates that (a) some configuration of the wireless access node itself was necessary to obtain the results shown in Guest Tek’s testing; and (b) this aspect of the configuration was not alone sufficient to result in all packets being forced to the gateway. Guest Tek does not point to any evidence showing hotels in Canada have undertaken such a configuration of wireless access nodes in networks that include a Nomadix gateway. ... Guest Tek has not established Nomadix influenced Canadian hotels to configure their wireless access nodes in this way or any particular way. ... I therefore conclude a POSITA would consider Claim 39 to claim a computer-readable storage medium, such as a flash drive, computer disk, or tape, on which is recorded software that will perform the method of one of claims 21 to 38 without requiring significant configuration or modification from a user.

Decision relates to:

  • A-112-21 - which is an appeal from this decision


Canadian Intellectual Property