Solucore Inc. v. KJA Consultants Inc.,, 2026 CanLII 11470
Associate Justice Horne - 2026-02-16
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
“The Claim alleges that each of the defendants provide “systems and services” that infringe every one of the 76 claims in the 406 Patent. … At the risk of oversimplifying the debate, the defendants characterize the Claim as a fishing expedition that does not adequately frame the issues for discovery and trial. The plaintiffs say that the Claim discloses a cause of action in patent infringement, sets out the required “who, what, when, where, why, and how,” and that the defendants know the case they have to meet. … I disagree with the plaintiffs; the defendants’ motion is granted. … The Claim does not identify the difference between what is described as a system and what is described as a service – two different words are used, so this must be directed to two different things. Again, this is not a defined term. The Claim does not clearly state whether each of the defendants is alleged to offer what is described as E2M, ATIS Alert, and TEAM, or whether these products/services are provided by only one of the defendants. … The Claim will be struck in its entirety, with leave to amend. This will also have the practical effect of removing the demand for particulars and the response from the equation.”
Decision relates to:
- T-2620-25 - SOLUCORE INC. et Al. v. KJA CONSULTANTS INC. et Al.