Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and Complax Corp., (1993) 68 F.T.R. 17 (TD)

• Judge: Reed, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 68 F.T.R. 17 (TD)

Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Can. Inc. (1993), 68 F.T.R. 17 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Allied Signal Inc. (previously Allied-Signal Inc.) (plaintiff) v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and The Complax Corporation (defendants)

(T-2234-89)

Indexed As: Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and Complax Corp.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Reed, J.

September 3, 1993.

Summary:

Allied sued Du Pont and Complax for infringement of its patent of an invention relating to a polymeric carrier film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding compounds. The defendants sought a declaration that the patent was invalid.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the defendants' counterclaim and declared the patent invalid.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1026

The specification and claims - Construction of a patent - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "in construing a patent, on must look at it through the eyes of a person skilled in the art to which the patent is addressed ... Construction must be purposive, neither benevolent not harsh" - See paragraph 4.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1128

The specification and claims - The description - Sufficiency of disclosure - Allied patented an invention relating to polymeric carrier film for use in manufacturing plastic sheet moulding compounds - The patent described the invention as relating to a blended polyamide/polyolefin film of low crystallinity - The polyamide was described as having a crystallinity of less than 35% - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the patent was invalid to the extent that it was ambiguous and insufficiently described how the crystallinity was to be measured - See paragraphs 71 to 122.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1502

Grounds of invalidity - Onus of proof - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1503 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1503

Grounds of invalidity - Presumption of validity - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that in a infringement action, a registered patent is assumed to be valid and the burden is on the defendant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, its invalidity - The plaintiff has the burden of proving infringement on a balance of probabilities - See paragraph 5.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1582

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of "inventive ingenuity" - Test for obviousness - Allied patented an invention relating to polymeric carrier film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding compounds - Allied sued Du Pont for infringement - Du Pont challenged the validity of the patent on the ground that it was an obvious step in the art at the time - Du Pont based its claim on a mosaic of extracts from prior patents - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the patent was not invalid for obviousness - See paragraphs 6 to 20.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1776

Grounds of invalidity - Insufficiency - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1128 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 2806

Infringement of patent - Substantial infringement - Allied patented an invention relating to polymeric carrier film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding compounds - The patent stated that the invention related to blended polyamide/polyolefin film - Du Pont produced a film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding using a modified polypropylene - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the minor variation came within the scope of the patent claim - See paragraphs 48 to 70.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2888

Infringement of patent - Acts constituting infringement - Particular patents - Film for use in one manufacturing process - Allied patented an invention relating to polymeric carrier film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding compounds (SMC) - Du Pont manufactured a film to be used by SMC producers in the United States - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the patent was infringed once the film was produced by Du Pont for use in its customers' SMC machines and it did not matter where the film was used - See paragraphs 33 to 45.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2925

Infringement of patent - Acts not constituting infringement - Selling goods in foreign country which are subject to Canadian patent - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 2888 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 3008

Infringement of patent - Defences - Variant of patent - Allied patented an invention relating to polymeric carrier film for use in the manufacture of plastic sheet moulding compounds (SMC) - Du Pont produced a film used by Complax in the manufacture of a thick moulding compound (TMC) - Allied sued Du Pont and Complax for infringement - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, construed the patent and held that it was not intended to apply to processes equivalent to SMC or minor variations thereof - Accordingly, using the film to make TMC did not infringe the patent - See paragraphs 25 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

A.T. & T. Technologies v. Mitel Corp. (1989), 28 F.T.R. 241; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 238 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1993), 152 N.R. 292 (F.C.A.), affg. 42 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1986), 64 N.R. 287; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]

Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Beecham Canada Ltd. and Calgon Interamerican Corp. (1982), 40 N.R. 313; 61 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitzpatrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 125 N.R. 218; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd., [1981] F.S.R. 60 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Dole Refrigerating Products Ltd. v. Canadian Ice Machine Co. (1957), 28 C.P.R. 32 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1988), 82 N.R. 235; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Permacon Québec Inc. v. Les Enterprises Arsenault & Frères Inc., [1988] 2 F.C. 179; 17 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Voith (J.M.) GmbH v. Beloit Corp. (1993), 61 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Smith, Kline Corp. et al. v. D.D.S.A. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [1978] F.S.R. 109, refd to. [para. 45].

Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. A.G. v. Harris Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al., [1971] F.S.P.L.R. 200 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 45].

Samsonite Corp. et al. v. Holiday Luggage Inc. (1988), 19 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 75].

Foseco Trading A.G. et al. v. Canadian Ferro Hot Metal Specialities Ltd. (1991), 46 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 75].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623; 97 N.R. 185; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 223; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 121].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 203; 56 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 34(1)(a), sect. 34(1)(b), sect. 34(1)(c), sect. 34(1)(d), sect. 34(1)(e) [para. 120]; sect. 34(2) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alexander, Lewy E., X-Ray Diffraction Methods in Polymer Science (1969), Degrees of Crystallinity in Polymers, generally [para. 107].

Baltà-Calleja and Vonk, X-Ray Scattering of Synthetic Polymers (1989), generally [para. 109].

Fox, H.G., Canadian Patent Law and Practice (4th Ed. 1969), pp. 184 to 186 [para. 4].

Garcia and Starkweather, Hydrogen Bonding in Nylon 66 and Model Compounds (1985), 23 Journal of Polymer Science 537, generally [para. 94].

Haberkorn, Illers and Simak, Molekülordnung und Kristallinität in Polyhexamethylenadipamid (Molecular Order and Crystallinity in Polyhexamethylenadipamide) (1979), 257 Colloid & Polymer Science 820, generally [para. 99].

Moynihan, Robert, Density, Infrared Absorption and Crystallinity in 66 and 610 Nylons (1956), 22 Journal of Polymer Science 363, generally [para. 93].

Murthy and Minor, General Procedure for Evaluating Amorphous Scattering and Crystallinity from X-ray Diffraction Scans of Semicrystalline Polymers (1990), 31 Polymer Papers 996, generally [para. 118].

Samuels, Robert J., Structured Polymer Properties (1974), generally [para. 109].

Sandeman and Keller, Crystallinity Studies of Polyamides by Infrared, Specific Volume and X-Ray Methods (1956), 19 Journal of Polymer Science 401, generally [para. 93].

Starkweather, Crystalline Organization in Useful Plastics (1963), SPE Transactions, vol. 3, p. 1 [para. 105].

Statton, W.O., Crystallinity Judged by X-Rays (1967), 18C Journal of Polymer Science 33, c. 8 [para. 106].

Counsel:

Alexander Macklin and Helene D'Iorio, representing the plaintiff;

Roger Hughes, Don Cameron and Scott MacKendrick, representing the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, representing the plaintiff;

Sim, Hughes, Dimock, Toronto, Ontario, representing the defendant.

This case was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 7 to June 23, 1993, before Reed, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario on September 3, 1993.