Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd. et al., (2001) 215 F.T.R. 100 (TD)

• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 215 F.T.R. 100 (TD)

Almecon Ind. Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd. (2001), 215 F.T.R. 100 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.001

Almecon Industries Limited (plaintiff) v. Anchortek Ltd., Explosives Limited, Ace Explosives ETI Ltd. and Western Explosives Ltd. (defendants)

(T-992-92; 2001 FCT 1404)

Indexed As: Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Gibson, J.

December 19, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff held a patent for a type of seismic tamping and topping bore plug used in oil and gas exploration. The plaintiff claimed that a plug manufactured by the defendant Anchortek infringed its patent. The plaintiff brought an action seeking declarations of validity of its patent and infringement by Anchortek, damages or, alternatively, an accounting of profits, and a reference to determine the extent of infringement and the quantum of damages and interest. Anchortek counterclaimed, submitting that the claims of the patent were invalid, a declaration that the plaintiff made misleading statements to Anchortek's customers contrary to s. 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act and damages.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the plaintiff's patent was valid and infringed by the Anchortek plug. A reference was ordered respecting the scope of the infringement and the quantum of damages or, alternatively, an accounting of profits to which the plaintiff was entitled. Anchortek's counterclaim was dismissed.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1128

The specification and claims - The description - Sufficiency of disclosure - The defendant submitted that the claims of the plaintiff's patent were invalid because the disclosures originally filed did not disclose the "best mode" known to the inventors at the date of filing - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - There was no evidence that the inventors failed to disclose the "best mode" known to them at the date of filing the application for the patent - Neither supplementary disclosure resulting from field experience nor improvements to the embodiments of the invention from that field experience detracted from the finding that, at the time of filing, the "best mode" known was disclosed - See paragraphs 57 to 63.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1130

The specification and claims - The description - Claims for more than what was invented - The plaintiff held a patent for a type of seismic tamping and topping bore plug used in oil and gas exploration - The plaintiff claimed that a plug manufactured by Anchortek infringed its patent - Anchortek submitted that its plug was not just a "tamping" plug, but also a "venting" plug - Anchortek claimed that if the claims of the patent were construed to encompass a plug such as its "venting" plug, then the claims were invalid as being broader than the invention made or disclosed - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - The disclosure of the patent clearly contemplated that tamping function as not only reducing the incidence of blowouts, but also reducing the loss of energy of the explosion or blast upwards through the bore hole - The claims spoke of the plugs being "substantially" closed (which would permit venting) - Accordingly, the claims were not invalid for being broader than invention made or actually disclosed in the patent - See paragraphs 34 to 43.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1131

The specification and claims - The description - Claims not conforming to disclosure - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1130 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1509

Grounds of invalidity - General - Commercial success - Effect of - The defendant challenged the validity of the plaintiff's patent for a tamping and topping plug on the ground that the claims encompassed an embodiment that was inoperative or lacked utility (did not work) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - The defendant had the onus of establishing invalidity on a balance of probabilities - The court accepted that "the utility of a patent may be proven by the reception received from the public. i.e. its commercial success" - Given the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence of commercial usage and success, a lack of utility was not established - See paragraphs 44 to 56.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1725

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of utility and operability - Particular patents - Tamping and topping plug - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1509 ].

Cases Noticed:

Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Nutron Manufacturing Ltd. (1996), 108 F.T.R. 161; 65 C.P.R.(3d) 417, affd. (1997), 209 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 224 N.R. 157 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 7].

Alsop Process Co. of Canada v. Friesen (J.P.) & Sons (1917), 35 D.L.R. 353 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 12].

Unilever plc v. Procter & Gamble Inc. (1995), 184 N.R. 378; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 499 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 14].

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. [apra. 32, footnote 15].

Noranda Mines Ltd. v. Minerals Separation North American Corp. (1947), 12 C.P.R. 102 (Ex. Ct.), revd. (1949), 12 C.P.R. 182 (S.C.C.), affd. (1952), 15 C.P.R. 133 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 16].

Leithiser and Timberland Ellicott Ltd. v. Pengo Hydra-Pull of Canada Ltd. (1974), 6 N.R. 301; 17 C.P.R.(2d) 110 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 17].

Reliance Electric Industrial Co. et al. v. Northern Telecom Ltd. (1993), 60 F.T.R. 208; 47 C.P.R.(3d) 55 (T.D.), affd. (1994), 168 N.R. 78; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 299 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 18].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 25].

Metalliflex Ltd. v. Rodi & Wienenberger Aktiengesellschaft, [1961] S.C.R. 117, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 26].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. (1978), 39 C.P.R.(2d) 191 (F.C.T.D.), revd. (1979), 35 N.R. 420; 41 C.P.R.(2d) 94 (F.C.A.), revd. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 28].

Cochlear Corp. v. Cosem Neurostim ltée (1995), 102 F.T.R. 81; 64 C.P.R.(3d) 10 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 32].

TRW Inc. v. Walbar of Canada Inc. (1991), 132 N.R. 161; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 176 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 36].

Teledyne Industries Inc. and Teledyne Industries Canada Ltd. v. Lido Industries Products Ltd. (1981), 39 N.R. 561; 57 C.P.R.(2d) 29 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 37].

Baker Petrolite Corp. et al. v. Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. et al. (2001), 210 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 39].

Free World Trust v. Electro Santé Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1024; 263 N.R. 150; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 168, refd to. [para. 68].

S. & S. Industries Inc. v. Rowell, [1966] S.C.R. 419, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 49].

Chase Manhattan Corp. v. 3133559 Canada Inc. et al., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 468 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 50].

Allcock Laight & Westwood Ltd. v. Patten, Bernard & Dynamic Displays Ltd., [1967] 1 O.R. 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 58].

Bombardier Ltd. v. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (1980), 48 C.P.R.(2d) 248 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 59].

Foote et al. v. Royal Columbian Hospital et al. (1982), 29 C.P.C. 94 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 112, footnote 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 60(1) [para. 6].

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 7(a) [para. 86].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), generally [paras. 45, 61].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 609 [para. 102].

Counsel:

Ronald Dimock and Bruce Stratton, for the plaintiff;

Glen Tremblay, Steven Garland and Jeremy Want, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Dimock Stratton Clarizio, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This action and counterclaim were heard on September 5-7 and 10-12, 2001, at Calgary, Alberta, before Gibson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 19, 2001, in Ottawa, Ontario.