DuPont Canada Inc. v. Glopak Inc., (1998) 146 F.T.R. 301 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 146 F.T.R. 301 (TD)

DuPont Can. Inc. v. Glopak Inc. (1998), 146 F.T.R. 301 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.006

DuPont Canada Inc. (plaintiff) v. Glopak Inc. (defendant)

(T-2565-96)

Indexed As: DuPont Canada Inc. v. Glopak Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

April 23, 1998.

Summary:

DuPont alleged that Glopak infringed its patent respecting polymer film. The defendant applied for a summary declaration that its GI-911 film did not infringe the patent.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application because the GI-911 film was never in issue in the action.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2926

Infringement of patent - Acts not constituting an infringement - Of particular patents - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 3008 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 3008

Infringement of patent - Defences - Variant of patent - DuPont alleged that Glopak infringed its patent respecting polymer film - Glopak applied for a summary declaration that its GI-911 film did not infringe the patent - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the density specified in DuPont's patent was an essential element of the patent and Glopak had not taken the substance of the invention where the density of its GI-911 film differed from the range specified in the patent; thus, the GI-911 film did not infringe the patent - However, the court dismissed Glopak's application for a summary declaration because the GI-911 film was never in issue in the action.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3505

Infringement actions - General - Approach used by court to determine if patent infringed - DuPont alleged that Glopak infringed its patent respecting polymer film - DuPont's affiant deposed that Glopak's film exhibited very similar physical characteristics to DuPont's film - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, commented that DuPont was seeking to have the Glopak film compared to its film and this was not an appropriate means of determining infringement - The court quoted an earlier decision of the court which stated that "... an infringement is not assessed by comparing the product of the invention to the product of the infringer, but by comparing the infringer's product to the patent of invention, and, in particular to its claims." - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gary Bowl Ltd., [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Allied Colloids Ltd. v. Alkaril Chemicals Ltd. (1990), 34 C.P.R.(3d) 426 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

American Cyanamid Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health and Welfare) et al. (1994), 81 F.T.R. 174; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 461 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Innotech Pty. Ltd. v. Phoenix Rotary Spike Harrows Ltd. et al. (1996), 68 C.P.R.(3d) 457 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Pallman Maschinenfabrik GmbH Co. KG v. CAE Machinery Ltd. and PS & E Projects Ltd. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 125; 62 C.P.R.(3d) 26 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Mobil Oil Corp. et al. v. Hercules Canada Inc. (1995), 188 N.R. 382; 63 C.P.R.(3d) 473 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill and Smith Ltd., [1982] R.P.C. 183 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Martinray Industries Ltd. et al. v. Fabricants National Dagendor Manufacturing Ltd. et al. (1991), 49 F.T.R. 81; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Airseal Controls Inc. v. M & I Heat Transfer Products (1993), 72 F.T.R. 196; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 259 (T.D.), affd. (1997), 220 N.R. 58; 77 C.P.R.(3d) 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Eli Lilly & Co. and Thomas Engineering v. Novopharm Ltd. (1989), 99 N.R. 60; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Johanne Gauthier and J. Nelson Landry, for the plaintiff;

Donald Cameron and Aaron Schwartz, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Ogilvy Renault, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Smith Lyons, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This matter was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 20, 1997, by Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on April 23, 1998.