Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., 2002 FCA 309 (2002)

Extract

---

Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., 2002 FCA 309 (2002)

Federal Court Reports

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (C.A.) [2003] 2 F.C. 165

Date: 20020904

Docket: A-367-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 309

CORAM: ISAAC J.A.

NOEL J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

PERCY SCHMEISER

and

SCHMEISER ENTERPRISES LTD.

Appellants

(Defendants)

and

MONSANTO CANADA INC.

and

MONSANTO COMPANY

Respondents

(Plaintiffs)

Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on May 15 and 16, 2002.

Reasons for Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on September 4, 2002.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SHARLOW J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: ISAAC J.A.

NOËL J.A.

Date: 20020904

Docket: A-367-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 309

CORAM: ISAAC J.A.

NOEL J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

PERCY SCHMEISER

and

SCHMEISER ENTERPRISES LTD.

Appellants

(Defendants)

and

MONSANTO CANADA INC.

and

MONSANTO COMPANY

Respondents

(Plaintiffs)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SHARLOW J.A.

[1] This is an appeal and cross-appeal of the decision of Mr. Justice MacKay of the Trial Division rendered on March 29, 2001 (2001 FCT 256), reported as Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204, [2001] F.C.J. No. 436 (QL).

[2] At trial, Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company (collectively, "Monsanto") alleged that Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. and Percy Schmeiser had infringed Monsanto's Canadian patent number 1,313,830 in 1998 by planting for harvest a crop of glyphosate resistant canola having a gene or cell that is the subject of the patent. The Trial Judge found that certain claims of the patent had been infringed and granted Monsanto an injunction, an order for delivery up, an award of damages (only against Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd.) in the amount of $19,832, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

[3] Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. and Mr. Schmeiser appealed the finding of infringement, the award of damages and the granting of the injunction. Monsanto cross-appealed on a number of grounds, but at the hearing relied only on the argument that the award of damages was too low.

Statutory framework

[4] The provisions of the Patent Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, that are most relevant to this appeal are as follows:

42. Every patent granted under this Act shall contain the title or name of the invention, with a reference to the specification, and shall, subject to this Act, grant to the patentee and the patentee's legal representatives for the term of the patent, from the granting of the patent, the exclusive right, privilege and liberty of making, constructing and using the invention and selling it to others to be used, subject to adjudication in respect thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction.

42. Tout brevet accordé en vertu de la présente loi contient le titre ou le nom de l'invention avec renvoi au mémoire descriptif et accorde, sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, au breveté et à ses représentants légaux, pour la durée du brevet à compter de la date où il a été accordé, le droit, la faculté et le privilège exclusif de fabriquer, construire, exploiter et vendre à d'autres, pour qu'ils l'exploitent, l'objet de l'invention, sauf jugement en l'espèce par un tribunal compétent.

...

...

54. (1) An action for the infringement of a patent may be brought in that court of record that, in the province in which the infringement is said to have occurred, has jurisdiction, pecuniarily, to the amount of the damages claimed and that, ...

See the full content of this document

---