Stockford v Enbridge, 2024 NBKB 132


Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

The Statement of Claim and Reply are replete with disjointed statements and incoherent ramblings. ... Even with a generous reading of the pleadings the Court concludes amendments would not be capable of breathing life into the pleadings. ... On this basis the Court strikes the Statement of Claim and Reply and grants judgment dismissing the Claim. ... Stockford’s pleadings do not identify the specific technology, invention, or proprietary rights being infringed. The reference in the pleadings to a “patent pending Pipeline Self-Clearing Systems” is an insufficient description with insufficient details to sustain a patent infringement claim.


Canadian Intellectual Property