Energy Absorption Systems Inc. v. Boissonneault (Y.) & Fils Inc. et al., (1990) 33 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 16, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 33 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

Energy Absorption v. Boissonneault (1990), 33 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Energy Absorption Systems Inc. (plaintiff) v. Y. Boissonneault & Fils Inc., Sécurité Impact Routier Inc. and Yvon Boissonneault (defendants)

(T-2263-86)

Indexed As: Energy Absorption Systems Inc. v. Boissonneault (Y.) & Fils Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Pinard, J.

April 17, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff American corporation owned a patent respecting a "cell sandwich impact attenuation device" and respecting a "shear action and compression energy absorber". These patents related to inventions for crash cushions (apparatus to absorb the shock of moving vehicles colliding with fixed structures near highways, e.g., bridge abutments). Also the plaintiff owned copyright in certain technical drawings of its inventions. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants (two Quebec corporations and a Quebec resident) for patent and copyright infringement. The defendants counterclaimed attacking the validity of the patents.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiff's action. The court, inter alia, declared the patents and copyright registrations to be valid and held that the defendants infringed both the patents and the plaintiff's copyright. The defendants' counterclaim was therefore dismissed.

Copyright - Topic 4486

Infringement - Actions constituting an infringement - Copying pictures of patented devices - The plaintiff owned a patent respecting crash cushions (apparatus to absorb the shock of vehicles colliding with fixed structures near highways, e.g., bridge abutments) - The plaintiff also owned copyright in technical drawings of its inventions covered by one of the patents - The drawings were reproduced in advertising booklets published by the plaintiff - The defendants published manuals with similar pictures of their crash cushions which infringed the plaintiff's patents - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's copyright - See paragraphs 142 to 153.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1026

The specification and claims - Construction of a patent - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, referred to the principles respecting the construction of patents - See paragraphs 28, 29.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1589

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of inventive ingenuity (obviousness) - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1605].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1605

Grounds of invalidity - Anticipation - Particular patents - The plaintiff owned patents for a "cell sandwich attenuation device" and a "shear action and compression energy absorber" - These inventions related to crash cushions (apparatus to absorb the impact of vehicles colliding with fixed structures near highways, e.g., bridge abutments) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the patents were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness - See paragraphs 122 to 141.

Patents of Invention - Topic 2888

Infringement of patents - Acts constituting an infringement - Of particular patents - The plaintiff owned two patents for crash cushions (to absorb the shock of motor vehicles colliding with fixed structures near highways, e.g., bridge abutments) - These patents were for a "cell sandwich attenuation device" and a "shear action and compression energy absorber" - The defendants imitated the plaintiff's crash cushions - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, examined the patents and the crash cushions in issue and held that the defendants infringed certain claims of the plaintiff's patents - See paragraphs 33 to 111.

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid Co. v. Berk Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (1976), R.P.C. 231, refd to. [para. 28].

Burton Parsons v. Hewlett Packard (1975), 17 C.P.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 29].

Procter & Gamble Company v. Beecham Canada Limited and Calgon Interamerican Corporation (1982), 40 N.R. 313; 61 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 114, 129].

Catnic Components Limited and another v. Hill and Smith Limited, [1982] R.P.C. 183 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 61, 68, 81].

O'hara Manufacturing Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Company, 26 C.P.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 62, 68].

McPhar Engineering Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Sharpe Instruments Ltd. (1960), 35 C.P.R. 105, refd to. [para. 113].

Lovel Manufacturing Company et al. v. Beatty Bros. Ltd. (1962), 41 C.P.R. 18, refd to. [para. 114].

Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-sil Companies Ltd. (1987), 13 F.T.R. 16; 16 C.P.R.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 114].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Sask.) Ltd. (1981), 35 N.R. 390; 56 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 117].

Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy (1986), 64 N.R. 287; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 122, 129, 136, 138].

Crila Plastic Industries Limited v. Ninety-Eight Plastic Trim Limited (1987), 81 N.R. 382; 18 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 132].

Omark Industries (1960) Ltd. v. Gouger Saw Chain Co. et al. (1964), 45 C.P.R. 169, refd to. [para. 134].

Reading & Bates Construction Co. et al. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp. et al. (1987), 18 C.P.R.(3d) 180, refd to. [para. 135].

Eli Lilly & Company v. Marzone Chemical Ltd. (1977), 37 C.P.R.(2d) 3, refd to. [para. 138].

The King v. Uhlemann Optical Co. (1949), 10 Fox's Pat. C. 24, refd to. [paras. 138, 139].

Bradale Distribution Enterprises v. Safety First Inc. (1987), 18 C.P.R. 71, refd to. [para. 146].

Horn Abbot Ltd. v. W.B. Coulter Sales Ltd. (1984), 77 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 146].

King Features Syndicate Inc. v. Lechter, [1950] Ex. C.R. 297, refd to. [para. 147].

L.B. (Plastics) Limited v. Swish Products Limited, [1979] R.P.C. 551 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 147].

Coral Index Limited v. Regent Index Limited, [1970] R.P.C. 147, refd to. [para. 147].

Rucker Co. et al. v. Gavel's Vulcanizing Ltd., 6 C.I.P.R. 137, refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 13(2) [para. 143]; sect. 64, sect. 64.1 [paras. 150-152].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 27(1)(b) [para. 122]; sect. 34 [paras. 7, 115-121]; sect. 45 [para. 112].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Institute of Steel Construction, Plastic Design in Steel, p. 305 [para. 56].

Fox, Canadian Patent Law (4th Ed.), p. 206 [para. 29].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed.), vols. 1 [para. 74]; 2 [para. 55].

Counsel:

Robert H. Barrigar, Q.C., Peter Dauphinee and François Grenier, for the plaintiff;

Ronald Fecteau, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Barrigar & Oyen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Monty, Coulombe, Sherbrooke, Quebec, for the defendants.

This case was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on January 16, 1990, before Pinard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 17, 1990: