Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries, (1990) 36 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

• Judge: McNair, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 36 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Ind. (1990), 36 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Flexi-Coil Ltd. (plaintiff, defendant by counterclaim) v. F.P. Bourgault Industries Air Seeder Division Ltd. (defendant, plaintiff by counterclaim)

(T-418-87)

Indexed As: Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault (F.P.) Industries

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McNair, J.

July 27, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, alleging infringement of the plaintiff's reissue patent for a "multiple section draw bar". The defendant applied for summary judgment for dismissal of the action, arguing that the reissue patent was invalid.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the defendant's application.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1276

Reissue of patents - Validity of the reissue - General - [See Practice - Topic 5702].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgment - When available - The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement of a reissue patent - The defendant applied for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that the reissue patent was invalid - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant summary judgment where the court was not persuaded that the factual matters between the parties were beyond controversy nor that the legal result flowing from the admitted facts was beyond doubt.

Practice - Topic 5705

Judgments and orders - Summary judgment - Requirement that question in issue be in doubt - [See Practice - Topic 5702].

Cases Noticed:

Northern Electric Co. Ltd. et al. v. Photo Sound Corporation et al., [1936] S.C.R. 649, dist. [paras. 8, 18, 21].

R. v. Gary Bowl Limited, [1974] 2 F.C. 146; 4 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Preston v. 20th Century Fox Corp. and Lucas (1987), 15 F.T.R. 54; 15 C.I.P.R. 110 (F.T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Curl-Master Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Brush Ltd., [1967] S.C.R. 514, refd to. [paras. 19-21].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 341(a) [para. 11].

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-4, sect. 50 [para. 19]; sect. 50(1) [paras. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15]; sect. 55(1) [paras. 6, 7, 9, 10, 15].

Counsel:

Gordon S. Clarke and John Allport, for the plaintiff;

James D. Kokonis, Q.C., and Donald F. Phenix, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gordon S. Clarke, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

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

This application was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on April 4, 1990, before McNair, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on July 27, 1990.